Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Soldier's Death, Malaya

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can disclose the circumstances of the death, in Malaya on 21st March, 1952, of Private MacDonald; and why he has declined to allow the father of the deceased soldier to see the report of the inquiry.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): On 21st March last year Lance-Corporal MacDonald was travelling in an armoured car on convoy duty in Malaya. The armoured car was forced to the verge of a narrow road to avoid an approaching civilian vehicle, the bank of the ditch at the roadside collapsed under its weight and the car overturned. This soldier most regrettably sustained severe head injuries from which he died.
The reports of courts of inquiry are confidential and privileged documents and we do not disclose them.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the father of this soldier, who himself has an excellent military record in the First World War, is distressed both at the death of his son and at the failure of the War Office to furnish him with particulars about the affair? If the report is confidential and cannot be disclosed to the father, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the father to come and

see him in order that the right hon. Gentleman may talk to him about the situation and thus endeavour to remove some of his distress?

Mr. Head: Yes. I well appreciate the father's distress. I have seen the letters which were sent explaining how the accident occurred, but if I can do anything more to relieve his feelings I shall be only too glad to do it.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that he will invite Mr. MacDonald to see him in order to talk it over?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir. If Mr. MacDonald wishes to come to see me, I will certainly invite him.

Married Quarters (Waiting Lists)

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) how many Army personnel are on the waiting list for married accommodation in Home Commands including the British Army of the Rhine;
(2) how many Army personnel of all ranks are on the waiting list for married accommodation in Honk Kong, Malaya. Middle East, West and East Africa. Gibraltar and Malta, respectively.

Mr. Head: Waiting lists are kept up-to-date locally. A special return would not, I think, be worth while, since such figures would not fully show the demand because many men put their names on the list only when they are likely soon to qualify. My hon. Friend will, however, be dealing in detail with the married quarter situation at home and overseas during the debate on the Army Estimates.

Mr. Alport: When this subject is dealt with in the forthcoming debate, will my right hon. Friend ensure that figures, as nearly accurate as possible, are given in this connection, because this is a matter which is causing great hardship and creating very great concern in all quarters concerned with Army welfare?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir. I am only too well aware of the problem of affording accommodation to married soldiers. My hon. Friend will put the general problem before the House.

Personal Cases

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for War why Private Arthur Stanley Garrington of the Territorial Army was sentenced to 28 days' detention on Saturday, 21st February, although his alleged offence was committed in July last year, since when he has regularly attended parades; and whether, in view of the long delay, he will arrange for his immediate release from Lichfield Barracks where he is now undergoing detention.

Mr. Head: This was a grave offence and disciplinary action was fully justified. However, since there was a serious and abnormal delay in dealing with the case, I have given orders for this man's release.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the Secretary of State aware that his act of clemency and common sense will be commended not only by the soldier undergoing detention but by all those who have had any connection with the case?

Mr. J. Paton: asked the Secretary of State for War why the claims department of the War Office fails to reply to communications with regard to the claim of Mr. R. S. Symonds of Norwich in respect of damage to his car caused by a War Department vehicle on 21st December last.

Mr. Head: My Department has been in constant communication since 31st December last year with Mr. Symonds, his insurance company and his solicitors.

Mr. Paton: Is the Minister aware that, while acknowledgments may have been passing, no decision has been reached in 2½ months? Is he aware that many men of modest means suffer great additional hardship because of delays of this nature in settling claims?

Mr. Head: We are corresponding with three different agents in this case. I have noticed that 11 letters passed last month. One of the problems is to establish liaison between the three different people representing Mr. Symonds.

Air Trooping

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has given consideration to the much lower capital

cost of troop transport by air as compared with sea travel; and, in view of the undoubted advantage of saving in time and manpower, what steps he is taking to put the Army on a more mobile basis.

Mr. Head: Individual trooping is now being carried out by air everywhere except for North-West Europe and the Far East. For various reasons it is uneconomic for North-West Europe, but we aim at an extension of air trooping to the Far East.

Mr. Bellenger: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply as far as it goes, would he bear this matter in mind for his Army Estimates, because obviously it is vital so far as the mobility of the Army is concerned?

Mr. Head: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, so far as his experience enables him to say, the use of air instead of sea transport has enabled him to use manpower to greater advantage?

Mr. Head: That is true where reinforcements are concerned, but it will be a long time before unit moves can take place by air since they have to move with their unit transport. Where reinforcements are concerned, there is no doubt that air transport conserves manpower considerably.

Mr. Bellenger: Arising out of that last reply, is the right hon. Gentleman making any experiments whatever on a unit basis, bearing in mind the way that parachute troops move with their transport through the air?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir. Of course parachute troops are organised with the minimum of transport, and their ability to maintain themselves over a long period is strictly limited, whereas an infantry battalion has sufficient transport to maintain itself for an indefinite period.

Mr. Fienburgh: In considering this, will the Minister look a little further than the manpower and capital expenditure involved, and look, too, at the strategic implications of moving troops by air, in view particularly of the results of the Monte Bello experiment, which showed fairly clearly the extreme vulnerability of sea lines of communication and harbour installations?

Mr. Head: Yes. I believe the establishment of a strategic reserve held in this country, which could be rapidly transported by air, is the objective at which we must always aim.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of services in each direction across the North Atlantic made by the York trooping aircraft since 2nd July, 1952, when the Skyways contract began; and what is the total number of passengers carried in each direction.

Mr. Head: Nineteen outward flights carrying 616 passengers, and 19 flights to this country carrying 607 passengers.

Mr. Beswick: As the total number is apparently 38, can the right hon. Gentleman say why, when last week we were questioning him about this route and this aircraft, he said that more than 112 flights had been made across the Atlantic?

Mr. Head: If the hon. Gentleman will read his Question, he will see that he asked me about Skyways trooping of York aircraft. The Question last week was concerned with Atlantic crossings by York aircraft, which remain at the figure of 112. I can add this information, which
I was unable to give last week, that 73 of those 112 flights were made in winter.

Mr. Beswick: But is the Minister now saying that any firm other than Skyways has made a single crossing of the North Atlantic?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Beswick: With York aircraft?

Mr. Head: Yes.

Resignation Option

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give youths, who join the Forces voluntarily with the consent of their parents, an opportunity of resigning if they desire to do so at the end of each triennial period.

Mr. Head: No, Sir.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a young man is more mature at the age of 20 to come to a decision of this character than he is at the age of 15 or 16 years? If he changes his mind after joining at the age of 15 or 16, will the Minister give him an

opportunity to retire from the Forces when he is at a mature age and can come to a proper decision?

Mr. Head: Yes, we have reconsidered this matter since I introduced the Estimates last year, and for regimental boys the period has been reduced from eight to six years.

Mr. Shinwell: Is there not some misunderstanding? Is it not the case that those who volunteer for the long-service engagements can resign at the end of the triennial period?

Mr. Head: No, there is no misunderstanding.

Strength

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for War what action he has taken to prune the non-essential administrative units of the Army; how far this action has increased the fighting strength of the Army; what action he has taken to make good the deficiency of young Regular officers, senior non-commissioned officers and technicians, and the gradual decline in the number of long-Service Regulars.

Mr. Head: I intend to deal fully with these three important questions when I introduce the Army Estimates. I would ask the hon. Member to await that occasion.

Sir H. Williams: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has added up the vast number of civilians attached to the Army, shown in the Army Estimates published recently?

Mr. Head: Wherever possible we have made attempts in administration and base depots to substitute civilians for soldiers because much of this work is unsuitable for soldiers, particularly for National Service men called up, and I believe it to be a sound policy.

R.A.C. (Coronation Representation)

Brigadier Pete: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that certain regiments of the Royal Armoured Corps have been ordered to include four troopers in their Coronation parties, the total of which is only seven other ranks; and whether, since such detailed interference with the duties of commanding


officers is contrary to previously accepted principles of command, he will cause the instructions to be altered.

Mr. Head: The representation is one officer, one warrant officer, one sergeant, one corporal and four lance-corporals or troopers. This is designed to ensure a fair and proportional representation of all ranks in the Army.

Brigadier Peto: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the only preoccupation of commanding officers in this respect is that their parties should be adequately representative of the regiments, that not unnaturally they wish to include those N.C.O.s and others who have given long service, both in war and peace, to Her Majesty's late father, and that this inclusion of a predominant proportion of people who have only just joined is quite unnecessary and should not be done?

Mr. Head: I do not think we can accept that the four lance-corporals or troopers have only just joined. Possibly all units have some old soldiers whom they would like to have as representatives. I would suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that on the whole, much though I admire sergeants and warrant officers, we should have a representation which represents the general proportion of ranks in the Army.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether this applies also to the other branches of the Service and if so, does he not agree that the commanding officer is the best judge of who is best able to represent the regiment?

Mr. Nabarro: Is this not a needless and unwarrantable interference with the prerogative of a commanding officer? If he deems it desirable to send six sergeant-majors, why should not he be allowed to do so?

Mr. Head: While accepting the preoccupation of the hon. Gentleman with sergeant-majors, I would point out that on the occasion of the last Coronation there was a certain amount of uncertainty as to the type of representation which there should be, and it varied. Some units sent nothing but warrant officers and sergeants and others adopted a different policy. By and large I do not believe it to be a bad thing to lay down general principles.

War Office Staff

Brigadier Peto: asked the Secretary of State for War by what number of officers and of other ranks respectively, the staff of the War Office has been reduced during the past 12 months.

Mr. Head: The military staff was reduced in the year ended 31st January, 1953, by 102 officers and 47 other ranks.

Brigadier Peto: In view of my previous Question, may I ask that it shall be further reduced so as to avoid this unnecessary meddling with things that do not concern it?

Newspapers, Korea

Miss Burton: asked the Secretary of State for War to publish the official report of the Quartermaster-General concerning the shortage of up-to-date newspapers for British troops in Korea.

Mr. Head: The Quartermaster-General made no official report on this matter when he returned from Korea.

Miss Burton: Would the right hon. Gentleman clear up this point, because both sides of the House are interested? Is it correct that when the Quartermaster-General returned he said, and I quote from the "Observer":
the most welcome present that can be sent to anyone serving in Korea is his … newspaper by air mail."?
Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply mean that he is now satisfied that the men in Korea have an adequate supply of up-to-date newspapers?

Mr. Head: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is that the hon. Lady is perfectly correct. No official report was made, but the Quartermaster-General stated that at the Press conference which he held. As a result, the mailing of papers to Korea has increased by 20 per cent. I am not entirely satisfied that the men in Korea have all the newspapers they want but, as I explained to the hon. Lady, if I were to subsidise the newspapers sent to Korea, it would be an immense expense. Indeed it costs £1,500 a ton by air, and newspapers, unfortunately, are very heavy matter for air freight.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Send them the "Daily Worker."

Miss Burton: Arising out of that reply, may I ask the Minister if, in view of what he said last week, he would be willing to discuss this problem with the newspapers to see if together they could arrive at a solution?

Mr. Head: Yes, I can assure the hon. Lady of that. Indeed the "Yorkshire Post" and the "Staffordshire News Letter" are already sending out by air a number of their papers which they themselves pay for.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister define exactly what he means by the words "up-to-date newspapers"? Is he aware that the Scottish troops in Korea get on a Sunday 145 "Sunday Posts" and nothing else? Would he define the "Sunday Post" as an up-to-date newspaper, since it is at least 100 years out of date?

Mr. Head: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is left entirely to the battalions concerned to decide what newspapers they want, and I understand that all ranks are consulted in this matter.

Flood Relief Work

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Army personnel were engaged in flood relief work; and what action is being taken to show in a practical way the nation's appreciation of the work they performed under trying conditions.

Mr. Head: At the peak more than 11,000 men were directly employed on flood relief work. Damaged clothing and equipment are being replaced without charge and as far as possible loss of leave caused by these duties is being made good. Individuals who have rendered specially meritorious service will be considered for recommendation for the appropriate awards.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Services, including the Army in particular, do not look for public recognition for doing their job, which they are very pleased to do on behalf of the country?

Mr. Dodds: The hon. and gallant Member should ask some of them, and they would give him the right answer.

Officers' Allowances, Middle and Far East

Mr. Legh: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement about the marriage and separation allowances of officers serving in the Middle and Far East, a review of which he announced on 22nd July last.

Mr. Head: Not yet, Sir.

Mr. Legh: As my right hon. Friend said on 22nd July last that he recognised that there were anomalies in connection with these allowances, is it possible for him to say when he expects to be able to make a statement about his review?

Mr. Head: I would ask my hon. Friend to wait and see.

Deserters (Coronation Amnesty)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Army deserters have taken advantage of the amnesty.

Mr. Head: Up to last week-end, 432 men had reported.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is not this a disappointing response and well below expectations? When are we to have a simple and clear statement tying up all the loose ends in the Prime Minister's statement, a statement which should be available to the general public, who do not always read HANSARD?

Mr. Head: It is hard to estimate how many of these men are at present in this country, but our estimate is about 2,800. They have been coming in steadily, and I think that the figure of 432 will be considerably exceeded. Of course, there are undoubtedly men who have been living under different names and who do not wish to change them, because of the dislocation to their ordinary day-to-day life which would occur.

Mr. Snow: Is it not a fact that many of these men may be abroad? Have steps been taken to publicise the decision about the amnesty?

Mr. Head: Yes, Sir. I think that the decision has been in the majority of foreign newspapers. We reckon that out of the total unaccounted for, which is some 10,000, quite a large proportion are


in Ireland, and I do not think that one would expect them to report.

Sir T. Moore: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of letters of appreciation that have been received by, I should imagine, every Member of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then they do not write to Socialist Members—shows the appreciation which all these unhappy men feel towards Her Majesty's Government for this kind and generous action?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Cotton Piece Goods, U.K. and India

Mr. Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade what duties and restrictive quotas are applied to British cotton piece goods entering India; and what duties and restrictive quotas are applied to Indian cotton piece goods entering the United Kingdom.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson): The Indian Finance Minister announced changes in import duties to be imposed on all cotton piece goods in his Budget last Friday. I would prefer to await further detailed information by air mail before making a statement to the House. Import licences are not being issued at present for cotton piece goods other than sateens, velvets and velveteens.
Cotton piece goods manufactured in, and consigned from, India are duty free in the United Kingdom, and virtually all cotton piece goods entering the United Kingdom from India are unrestricted.

Mr. Shepherd: It is not clear that this arrangement between India and this country is entirely unsatisfactory so far as we are concerned? Can my hon. Friend say what steps the Government are taking to bring about a more equitable state of affairs?

Mr. Mackeson: As I have told my hon. Friend, my right hon. Friend must see the details of this Budget statement before we comment. So far we have seen only the telegrams.

Mr. Bottomley: Would not the Secretary for Overseas Trade agree that the present agreement with India is a good

one and highly beneficial to this country, and that we should be very careful about what we are doing?

Mr. Mackeson: Certainly, we should be careful about commenting on this matter without seeing the full text.

Export Credit Guarantees (Surplus)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total surpluses earned by the Export Credit Guarantees Department since its inception.

Mr. Mackeson: The total is £14,399,519. Deficiencies of £3,042,445 were incurred and the net contribution to the Exchequer was £11,357,074. This surplus relates to commercial guarantees only.

Highland Woollen Goods (Export)

Mr. Grimond: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to help the export of hand-made woollen products from the Highlands.

Mr. Mackeson: I am very ready to consider any practicable suggestions from the industry on ways in which the Board of Trade can help it in its efforts to increase its overseas sales. The Board's regional representatives in Scotland ensure that firms are informed of the ordinary help to exporters which the Department offers, and details of particular openings for trade, as reported from time to time by overseas posts, are brought to the notice of exporters who are likely to be interested.

Mr. Grimond: While I welcome what is done by the Department at present, would the Minister agree that, although it is very important to help these areas where unemployment is high, it is a rather difficult matter to do it in the case of so many small firms? Will the hon. Gentleman say whether help can be given with finance and also in bringing these goods to the notice of Coronation visitors?

Mr. Mackeson: I am only too anxious to do anything I can to help the hon. Member. We are arranging, as soon as the better weather arrives, for one of our regional officers to get round to these remote places, particularly those to which the hon. Member has referred in his discussions with me.

Sir H. Williams: Is not my hon. Friend a little surprised that the chief exponent of laisser faire wants the Government to sell his constituents' goods?

Exports, South America

Mr. Pannell: asked the President of the Board of Trade the nature of the contract, worth £10 million, which this country recently lost to Germany for goods to be supplied to a Latin-American State, in which this country's margin of profit was less than the Germans although our cost of production was higher.

Mr. Mackeson: I know of no such contract.

Mr. Pannell: I do not want to comment on that any further. I wish now, Mr. Speaker, to raise a point of order. This Question arose from a completely erroneous statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health during the Canterbury by-election. When I approached the Table to try to put a Question to the Prime Minister to find out whether erroneous statements of this sort represented the policy of the Government, I could not get it past the Table; and I am informed that Parliamentary Secretaries are not deemed to be responsible persons in relation to Governmental or Cabinet responsibility.
Events of this sort, fortunately, are rare, but I should be obliged, Mr. Speaker, if you would give me and the House your guidance, in case of the repetition of an incident such as this, as to what course is open to an hon. Member when a Parliamentary Secretary or Minister below the rank of Cabinet Minister makes statements in the country for which he cannot be held accountable to the House.

Mr. Speaker: The rule is perfectly clear. Questions can be addressed to Ministers only with regard to those matters for which they are administratively responsible to the House. That applies also as regards Parliamentary Secretaries, but Questions cannot as a rule be addressed to Parliamentary Secretaries unless they have been specifically nominated to take charge of certain departments of the Administration. The hon. Member asks my advice. I can only say that these matters can be raised in debate and by counter-speeches, and

so on, but Questions cannot be used for that purpose.
I understand that this particular incident was settled by an apology and withdrawal, which was accepted by the Opposition, and I think that if that is the case it should not be raised again.

Mr. Pannell: I hope that you are not blaming me, Mr. Speaker, for raising a general point of order, bearing in mind that in my first sentence I said that I accepted the apology. Are there not precedents? Is it not a fact that when my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) made a speech that resulted in his leaving the Ministry of Food, it was pursued against him by Members on the other side? Might I ask you to consider the matter again?

Mr. Speaker: I was not in any way blaming the hon. Member for raising the matter as a point of order. The matter is discussed in May's "Parliamentary Practice," and the question which it is always open to ask is, from the Prime Minister, whether a statement made by a Minister represents the policy of the Government. That has always been allowed as a matter for which the Prime Minister is answerable. It does not, however, go further than that.

Mr. Pannell: Further to that point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] I have been put to a great deal of trouble over this matter, and I hope that the House will be patient with me. Are you now saying, Mr. Speaker, that in the matter of a statement made by a Parliamentary Secretary, one can ask whether it represents the policy of the Government?

Mr. Speaker: Normally, it is only Ministers of Cabinet rank whose statements can be made the basis of Questions which I have mentioned as being in order. As I say, there do exist plenty of other ways in which hon. Members can obtain a remedy for erroneous statements made in the country.

Tariffs and Trade Agreement (Japan)

Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent unanimous decision by the inter-Sessional Committee at Geneva that no discriminatory safeguards should be introduced against the possible


consequences of Japan's admission to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the United Kingdom will oppose Japan's application for membership to that organisation.

Mr. Mackeson: The report which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind does not constitute a decision, and, while recommending that Japan should not be singled out as the one country against which there should be special safeguards, does envisage the possibility of discriminatory action against any country, including Japan, whose competition caused violent disruption of trade.
As regards Her Majesty's Government's policy in this matter, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on 19th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell).

Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: Does not my hon. Friend agree that Japan's admittance to G.A.T.T. would mean that she would then be able to claim a right to most-favoured-nation treatment, which was denied to her under the Japanese Peace Treaty, and by that means re-open the door to renewed Japanese cut-throat competition?

Mr. Mackeson: My hon. and gallant Friend had better put that Question down.

Mr. Hale: Is the Secretary for Overseas Trade aware that this is an exceedingly important matter and that it is a little unfair to the House to keep referring back to previous statements? Cannot we be told whether Her Majesty's Government have considered this very important matter and come to any decision as to the line they propose to take in regard to the admission of Japan either to G.A.T.T. or U.N.O.? What instructions are they to give to their representatives?

Mr. Mackeson: This Question refers to a "decision" which in fact is not a decision, and I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend last week.

Ernest Reid and Company (Winding-up)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade when his Department anticipate completion of the

winding-up of the affairs of Ernest Reid and Company.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I understand that the liquidator cannot yet say when the winding-up is likely to be completed.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the long delay which is occurring in this case is a result of the difficulty that the official receiver has in getting hold of Mr. George Dawson? In view of the fact that this gentleman is now seeking entry into the Icelandic fishing industry, what steps is my hon. Friend taking to see that there is not a repetition of the affairs of Ernest Reid and Company in any matters arising from the Icelandic fishing arrangements?

Mr. Strauss: The Icelandic fishing arrangements have nothing to do with this Question. The Question on the Order Paper refers to a compulsory winding-up by an order of the court and, in view of the complexity and the mass of material to be examined, the liquidator is unable to give a date.

Mr. Nabarro: Did not George Dawson have a great deal to do with Ernest Reid and Company and cannot my hon. and learned Friend say whether the Official Receiver has yet taken steps to get hold of Mr. Dawson and question him about the affairs of that company?

Mr. Speaker: I understood from the last reply that this matter is before the court.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter is not at present before the court; that is the purpose of this Question—to try to ascertain why the long delay is occurring in publishing the findings of the Official Receiver in this matter.

Mr. Strauss: I said that this was the case of a winding-up by order of the court and I am unable to give details of the progress of the liquidation. It is quite correct that I did not say that this matter is before the court.

Australian Import Restrictions (Relaxations)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the President of the Board of Trade what relaxation has now taken place in regard to the


restrictions on imports of British manufactured goods into Australia; to what extent the pre-February, 1952, Australian imports position has been restored; and whether he will make a statement having special reference to the United Kingdom motor vehicles and carpet industries which have suffered most severely as a result of Australian import restrictions.

Mr. Mackeson: The relaxations just announced are intended, I understand, to add £40 million sterling a year to Australia's imports from non-dollar countries, excluding Japan, but it is not possible to assess their precise effect on United Kingdom exports. In the six months before March, 1952, when the import restrictions were imposed, Australia imported at the very high annual rate of £805 million sterling from these countries. In the six months July to December, 1952, Australia imported at an annual rate of £312 million from the same countries. Carpets and assembled motor vehicles are included in the category of goods for which the quota is to be increased from 20 per cent. of 1950–51 values to 30 per cent. from 1st April.

Mr. Nabarro: Cannot my hon. Friend be a little more forthcoming about the carpet industry? Is it not a fact that 48 per cent. of all the carpet exports from this country went to Australia in 1951? Can he say what the effect of the recent £40 million increase is going to be on the carpet industry's exports?

Mr. Mackeson: The trouble is that these relaxations cover a very large number of countries and a very large number of industries, and it is really impossible to give an estimate of what their effects will be on one industry.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the bulk of these increased imports as a result of this relaxation will be of capital goods and raw materials, and that the advantage to the whole of the textile industry of Britain will only be to the tune of £2 million? Is it not a demonstration of the failure of the Government to use the opportunity presented by the Commonwealth Conference for an expansion of Commonwealth trade?

Mr. Mackeson: As I have tried to explain before, this is a matter for the Australian Government, who naturally, for balance of payments reasons, must

handle their own affairs. I cannot give an estimate of what the advantage will be in the case of a particular industry.

Brigadier Peto: Is my hon. Friend aware that the fabric glove industry is equally hard hit by these import duties? Is it not time that he looked into the question from a much wider angle than he has done so far?

Mr. Mackeson: If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the communiqué issued after the Commonwealth Conference, he will find that our Australian friends committed themselves very fully to look after our interests as far as they could.

Mr. Bottomley: Have not Her Majesty's Government taken some steps since the Commonwealth Conference to find out from Australia what quotas there are and the amounts for each particular item? We really should have some information.

Mr. Mackeson: Under category B, importers are allowed to switch from one commodity to another, so the Australians have given a certain amount of flexibility to importers in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hale.

Mr. D. Brook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you called my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) I was on my feet.

Mr. Speaker: I allow only a certain amount of time for each Question, but I should have called the hon. Member if he had not been blanketed by his own Front Bench.

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what effect the increased import quotas to Australia will have on British textiles.

Mr. Mackeson: I hope that the partial relaxation in the Australian restrictions will have a beneficial effect on our exports. Apart from yarns, textile goods fall mainly under category B of the Australian import restrictions. Licences in respect of this category can be used to import from any of a number of countries any of the goods falling within category B, and it is, therefore, not possible


to make any reliable estimate of the likely increase in United Kingdom exports of textiles.

Air Commodore Harvey: While thanking my hon. Friend for that answer, may I be allowed to tell him that I am not very much wiser? Will he bear in mind that orders for the textile industry as a result of the Coronation are already beginning to fall off? Will he communicate with our Australian friends to see what can be done for this industry which, although it has been built up, has to be kept up?

Mr. Mackeson: Our Australian friends are very well aware of our anxiety in this matter.

Mr. D. Brook: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Australia is drawing considerably more for her exports of raw wool this year than last, and that her financial position should warrant the liberation of imports from this country?

Mr. Mackeson: That is a matter for the Australian Government. They must look after their own economy. We cannot run it from the Floor of this House.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made, or intends to make, to the Australian Government with regard to the desirability for an increase in Australian imports of cast-iron goods from this country.

Mr. Mackeson: The impact of the Australian restrictions on United Kingdom industries has naturally been discussed very fully with the Commonwealth Government. The recently announced partial relaxation of the Australian restrictions will, I hope, benefit our exports of cast-iron goods.

Mr. MacPherson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a more exact answer would be helpful in the circumstances? Does he realise that the exports of cast-iron goods to Australia formed a considerable part of the work in my constituency, and that one of the reasons for the anxiety about future employment in the Falkirk area is Australian import restrictions? Will he do what he can to have the level of these exports restored?

Mr. Mackeson: I am well aware of the anxiety of hon. Members in this matter. Cast-iron goods are restricted in different ratios according to different goods. I think I am right in saying that cast-iron exports to Australia will benefit as a result of this concession, but it is impossible to say exactly how much benefit there will be in the case of any particular commodity.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that the real answer to all these questions is that if we restrict imports we shall restrict exports? That applies to all countries.

Mr. McGovern: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Australians are very anxious also to be allowed to send their exports to this country?

Mr. Mackeson: The hon. Member will recall that the Australians ran into a serious balance of payments difficulty owing to the fall in the price of wool in the world markets.

Mr. Jay: Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises some responsibility on the part of Her Majesty's Government to make representations to the Australian Government on these matters?

Mr. Mackeson: Certainly. We are in constant touch with the Australians, who are well aware of our anxiety in this matter.

Double-Shift Working (Cotton Industry)

Mr. Hale: asked the President of the Board of Trade the estimated percentage saving in cost of a standard or average yard of cotton cloth to be secured by introduction of a two-shift system of working.

Mr. H. Strauss: It is impossible to give an estimate. The amount would depend on the particular circumstances of the mill concerned.

Mr. Hale: Arising out of the answer—which, for a number of reasons, I did not completely hear—may I ask whether it would be a good idea in Lancashire to restore full employment to the spinning section before making appeals for altering the whole system of working in order to endeavour to secure a minor economy which is normally computed at a very small sum?

Mr. Strauss: I presume that the hon. Member knows the complexity of the economic question involved, but he will have noticed that on 25th February the National Joint Advisory Council agreed that benefit might be derived by the introduction of double-shift working, and that it was a matter for local agreement by the parties concerned.

Mr. Osborne: Could my hon. and learned Friend say whether it is not true that the institution of double-shift working would so reduce our costs of production as to give the fuller employment that single shifts by themselves will not provide?

Mr. Strauss: I should prefer not to add, at this moment, to the conclusions reached by the National Joint Advisory Council. The economics of this question are very complicated.

War Damage Claims (Business Chattels)

Mr. Odey: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total of the claims submitted under the insurance of business chattels provided for by Part II of the War Damage Act, 1943; and what proportion of the total claims made have already been paid.

Mr. H. Strauss: The total of the claims under the business scheme of Part II of the War Damage Act, 1943, is approximately £92 million, of which £66 million has already been paid. This does not include interest.

Mr. Odey: Would my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the general public were encouraged by the Government to insure under this scheme at the time? Is it not most unsatisfactory that more than 10 years should have passed with a large number of these claims not having been met?

Mr. Strauss: If my hon. Friend will refer to the statute, he will see that under Section 85 (1) the general settlement of claims must await the fixing of a date by the Treasury.

Mr. Odey: That is a most unsatisfactory answer.

Furniture (Standards)

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will send a questionnaire to manufacturers and

unions connected with the furniture industry to ascertain their views on the marking of furniture with either the name and address, or the trade mark, of the manufacturer.

Mr. H. Strauss: No, Sir.

Miss Burton: May I ask why, when the manufacturers' association and the trade unions are in favour of furniture being thus marked, and when it is also a benefit to consumers, the Government say "No"?

Mr. Strauss: My right hon. Friend informed the hon. Lady on 12th February that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to provide for such marking by legislation. No doubt the merits of that decision can be debated, and an opportunity for such a debate may occur when the Merchandise Marks Bill comes before this House.

Film Quota

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to be in a position to make an announcement about the British first feature film quota for 1953–54.

Mr. H. Strauss: Within the next fortnight.

Coronation Souvenirs

Miss Ward: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to ensure that Coronation souvenirs, which are not produced in this country or the Commonwealth, are not distributed or put on sale in this country.

Mr. Mackeson: An Order was made on 23rd June last year prohibiting, as from 27th June last, except under special licence, the import from foreign countries of souvenirs suitable for use in connection with Her Majesty's Coronation. A detailed definition of the goods affected is contained in the Order, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.

Miss Ward: That is a very satisfactory state of affairs, but can my hon. Friend tell me whether that Order covers pencils, coloured red, white and blue and marked "Made in Germany," the importation of which has caused great annoyance to a number of people?

Mr. Mackeson: I should prefer my hon. Friend to put a Question on the Order Paper.

Monopolies Commission

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is yet in a position to announce the Government's plans for the strengthening of the Monopolies Commission; and when he anticipates introducing the necessary legislation to deal with this matter.

Mr. H. Strauss: I would refer the hon. Member to what my right hon. Friend said during the debate on the Address on 5th November last.

Mr. Dalton: Is it not since November, 1951, that we have awaited this promised legislation? Was not that one of the promises contained in the Gracious Speech? What is the matter? What is going on at the Board of Trade?

Mr. Strauss: If the right hon. Gentleman will consult the answer mentioned in my original reply, he will find that that was dealt with by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Wade: Does the Minister agree that if a policy of de-nationalisation is to lead to an extension of genuine private enterprise, it is absolutely essential that there should be some strengthening of the powers of the Monopolies Commission?

Mr. Strauss: My right hon. Friend dealt with the question of legislation during the present Session. I do not think the House will expect me to make a declaration about the legislation for future Sessions.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Monopolies Commission have begun their inquiry into the subject of pneumatic tyres which was referred to them on 19th September, 1952; and what progress they have made.

Mr. H. Strauss: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend understands from the Commission that they have begun the inquiry and that it is proceeding normally.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say when the Commission are likely to report, because the cost of tyres is only one of the heavy burdens imposed on road vehicle users since this Government came into power?

Mr. Strauss: We have every confidence that the Commission are getting on properly with their work. I cannot state exactly what progress has been made

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would not the Commission get on with their work even more quickly if they consisted of full-time rather than part-time members?

Mr. Strauss: My hon. Friend put down a Question previously on that subject, which was answered.

Anglo-Turkish Trade

Mr. Philips Price: asked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of Turkish tobacco is now included in the blends now smoked in this country; and whether, in view of the large credit on trade which this country has with Turkey, he will do everything possible to increase our purchases of tobacco from that country.

Mr. H. Strauss: The answer to the first part of the Question is 3.75 per cent. on an average. Licences are granted freely to enable the trade to import as much Turkish tobacco as they wish, and there are no restrictions on its use.

Mr. Price: While I realise the sensitiveness of the public over the taste of these Mediterranean tobaccos, may I ask if it would be possible to raise the percentage of the blend without causing any unfavourable reaction on public consumption?

Mr. Strauss: The import of dollar tobacco is restricted to the minimum, and that should encourage the use of other kinds of leaf.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Minister whether he has satisfied himself about the extent to which manufacturers of cigarettes, etc., in this country are mixed up with the tobacco growers in America? No self-respecting American ever smokes Virginian cigarettes.

Mr. Strauss: I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman deduces from that. There are questions of taste involved, as the hon. Member for Gloucestershire. West (Mr. Price) recognised.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, but may I ask the Minister to answer my question? Has he satisfied himself that the manufacturers in this country are not too closely mixed up with the growers in America?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are proceeding far beyond the original Question.

Mr. Nabarro: Is not it a fact that if we were in a position to buy more Greek and Turkish tobacco, we should have more American dollars, which might be used to buy sugar, and thus help to get rid of the Ministry of Food?

Mr. Hale: When considering this important question, will the Minister bear in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Price) is a non-smoker?

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the President of the Board of Trade what contacts have been made by Her Majesty's Government with the Turkish Trade Mission at present visiting this country.

Mr. Mackeson: Close and cordial relations have been established between the Turkish Trade Mission and Her Majesty's Government. The Mission's main contacts have been with the Ministry of Food and the Board of Trade, but in addition members of the Mission have had discussions with the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Materials and the Ministry of Supply.

Mr. Jeger: is the Minister aware that there is great anxiety among the members of the Turkish Mission that, having come over here to negotiate trade treaties and further purchases from us, as well as further purchases by ourselves from Turkey, they are not able to get the question of their unfavourable balance of trade settled in a satisfactory way?

Mr. Mackeson: I have seen the Mission three times myself. We are well aware of their anxiety, and I think they also realise our difficulties in purchasing some of the things which they want to sell us.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the Minister aware that members of the Turkish Mission have said that they have foodstuffs to sell us at much cheaper prices than those at which we can buy elsewhere, and that we are refusing to buy?

Mr. Mackeson: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will put that Question to the Minister of Food.

Manila Rope (Classification)

Mr. Rankin: asked the President of the Board of Trade why manila rope was classified as of strategic importance in December, 1952, and is not now so classified in February, 1953.

Mr. Mackeson: Manila rope is of strategic importance, and its export to China is prohibited on that ground. I am sorry that I misled the House in a supplementary answer I gave the hon. Gentleman on 24th February. I intended to convey to him the fact that, for balance of payments reason, we limit imports of manila hemp from which the rope is made, and there is, therefore, not an unlimited supply of manila rope in this country.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister aware that I am glad that he has cleared up this particular muddle? While he admits that there are not sufficient supplies of manila rope in the country, may I ask him when he expects that enough rope will be available for the Government to hang themselves.

Antibiotics (Exports to China)

Dr. Stross: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a further statement on the refusal to allow export licences to British firms for the sale of sulpha and antibiotic drugs to China.

Mr. Mackeson: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave the hon. Member on 16th December. The discussions to which I referred in that answer are still proceeding.

Dr. Stross: As some time has elapsed since 16th December, when the hon. Gentleman said that active discussions were in progress with Western Germany and other European countries, can he say whether the £2 million contract, of which the first portion was £500,000, has now been sent by Western Germany to China or not?

Mr. Mackeson: I am not certain about the last part of the hon. Member's question. With regard to the first part, we have made some progress, but there are a number of countries involved in what is a very complicated matter.

Builders' Conferences (Activities)

Mr. P. Wells: asked the President of the Board of Trade when a decision regarding the reference of the activities of the London Builders' and Regional Conferences to the Monopolies Commission can be expected.

Mr. H. Strauss: My right hon. Friend is considering this matter, but cannot yet make a statement.

Mr. Wells: In view of the fact that it is nearly six months since this matter was referred to his Department, can the Minister say why he is so tardy in protecting the local authorities and others from the harmful activities of the London Builders' Conference?

Mr. Strauss: There is no foundation whatever for the innuendo in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. A number of matters have been suggested for reference to the Monopolies Commission, and my right hon. Friend hopes to announce very soon what will be the next reference to be made.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the fact that this matter affects the interests of many people, can the hon. Gentleman say why it should take six months for the President of the Board of Trade to make up his mind? Is he not aware of the fact that all decent-minded people in this country feel that the question should have been referred immediately when my hon. Friend raised it, and will he do it now?

Mr. Strauss: The question is what shall be the next reference to the Monopolies Commission, and on that subject I have already answered.

Sir H. Williams: Would my hon. Friend also consider referring to the Monopolies Commission the action of the go-slow workers at certain railway stations in London?

Import Duties

Mr. Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of dutiable imports for the 12 months ended December, 1952, shown separately under the headings of the relevant Import Duties Acts; what were the amounts of duty paid; and if he will make a statement

on the Government's policy on import duties.

Mr. Mackeson: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the several Acts under which protective duties are imposed. With his permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures for which he asks.
In reply to the third part of the Question, Her Majesty's Government consider that the tariff provides the appropriate method of protection for domestic industry and agriculture when the need for such protection has been proved. The hon. Member will be aware, however, that the United Kingdom is a contracting party to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and has, therefore, agreed to contribute to the objectives of that Agreement by entering into reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements directed to the reduction of tariffs.

Mr. Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the same kind of enmity arises in other countries which have to cope with our import restrictions of one type or another as has been indicated in this House by several hon. Members who are annoyed by the import restrictions of other countries, and will he do something to impress upon the Government the urgent necessity of an early lowering of these import duties and the removing of restrictions?

Mr. Mackeson: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a pretty wide question on Government policy. If he wants me to go any further into it, I should be grateful if he would put his question on the Order Paper.

Following are the figures:

I am advised that net receipts of duty under each of these Acts in the 12 months ended December, 1952, were approximately as follows:



£ million


Import Duties Act, 1932
73.14


Ottawa Agreements Act, 1932
5.64


Safeguarding of Industries Act,1921
1.81


Beef and Veal Customs Duties Act, 1937
1.16


Finance Act, 1925 (imposing the silk duties)
1.94

As many of the duties charged under these Acts are on a specific basis, complete information as to the value of dutiable imports is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

£ Sterling (Purchasing Power)

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the percentage fall in the internal purchasing power of the £ sterling since the Bank rate was last increased.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): Four per cent. between March, 1952, and January, 1953. This figure is based on the Interim Index of Retail Prices of the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it will come as a tremendous shock to most people in this country to learn that the internal purchasing power of the pound has fallen by 4 per cent. while the bank rate has been increased, because many people will get the impression that the policy of the Government is to make money more valuable for those who live by lending it and less valuable for those who live by earning it?

Mr. Maudling: If it had not been for the monetary policy of my right hon. Friend, the increase in the Index of Retail Prices, which was six points in 1952, might have been nearer the rise of 13 points in 1951.

Savings

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates the annual rate of saving to be now.

Mr. Maudling: Such information as is available will be given in the next issue of the National Income and Expenditure Estimates, which it is hoped to publish shortly.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister agree that, unless the new estimates are very much better than the old ones, the present rate of savings is inadequate to provide the necessary investment at home or allow anything over for investment abroad; and, if he agrees, will he say what steps are being taken to increase real savings, particularly small savings, in this country?

Mr. Maudling: I agree about the fun damental importance of savings, but I would not care to anticipate either the estimates or my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would the hon. Gentleman be a little more precise about the word "shortly"? Does he hope that this national income figure will be published before the end of the month?

Mr. Maudling: I hope it will be before the end of the month.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the Treasury see that the next Digest of Statistics analyses more precisely the figures under the heading of "Total capital formation," in order to try to show the country what the real savings are, instead of confusing the issue so much that much more than the real savings are included under the general heading?

Mr. Maudling: I will bear that suggestion in mind.

American Investment

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much United States capital was invested in this country in 1952.

Mr. Maudling: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Grimond: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether any attempt is to be made to make this information available, because it is important to distinguish between investment abroad and in this country for various purposes?

Mr. Maudling: It is very difficult to provide complete information; for example, we have no statistics of the amount of profits ploughed back by American companies operating in this country.

Purchase Tax (Photographic Equipment)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reduce the Purchase Tax chargeable on photographic equipment in view of the serious handicap which the present tax imposes upon this most useful hobby.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I have taken note of the hon. Member's suggestion, but he will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to his right hon. Friend to take note of the very real hardships imposed on young people, whom I should have thought we were all anxious to encourage?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: All these considerations, of course, will be borne in mind.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Will the Minister bear in mind that in the sale of photographic materials, particularly Christmas cards, there are some very grave tax anomalies? Will he undertake to look at those?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This Question relates to photographic equipment, and I think that Christmas cards are a very different question.

Prices and Production

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has studied the details which have been sent to him of a statement by Mr. J. B. Steadman, President of the British Footwear Manufacturers' Federation, on 23rd February calling attention to the increase in the price of coal and other commodities and the need for increased production without increasing costs; what action he is taking to meet these difficulties; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend has seen the statement referred to, but

he does not wish to anticipate his Budget Statement.

Sir W. Smithers: Will my hon. Friend impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the necessity, when he is preparing his Budget, of facing the facts, telling the people of the country the facts and the truth, and acting on expert advice and not on theoretical bureaucratic policy?

Mr. Maudling: I will certainly convey those views to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the fact that these recent increases in prices are largely due to increases in wages caused by higher food prices, in turn caused by the cut in food subsidies, will the hon. Gentleman, in order to reassure his hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), give an undertaking that there will be no further cut in food subsidies in this year's Budget?

Mr. Maudling: I do not know to what increases in prices the right hon. Gentleman is referring. In fact the present cost-of-living index, as he knows, has been stable now for a longer period than ever before in its history.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — ROYAL TITLES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.32 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is the fourth Measure authorising an alteration of the Royal titles which has been introduced into Parliament in the present century. Each Bill has been necessary to enable the title of the Sovereign to be brought into line with the constitutional position and constitutional arrangements within the Commonwealth current at the time the Bill was introduced. Thus, under the powers given by the 1901 Act, the words
and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas
were introduced to recognise the growth of what we used to call the Dominions into full membership of the Commonwealth.
In 1927, a further alteration was authorised, following upon the creation of what was then called the Irish Free State, which was a Dominion on much the same lines as our Dominions but was not "beyond the Seas," and the creation of the Government of Northern Ireland which remained part of the United Kingdom. In 1947, in Section 7 (2) of the India Independence Act, Parliament authorised the deletion of the words "Emperor of India" from the title of the Sovereign when India became independent. Today, I move the Second Reading of another Royal Titles Bill which, like all previous Bills dealing with the Royal title, including that of 1876, authorises the Sovereign by proclamation to appoint the Royal title.
I think that the House will be aware that the terms of the Royal title were among the matters considered at the time of the meeting of the Prime Ministers and other heads of delegations at the Commonwealth Economic Conference which met in London last December. Those present at that meeting agreed that the existing title of the Queen did not reflect the existing constitutional position under which other members of the

Commonwealth are full and equal partners with the United Kingdom in our great family of nations. The existing title is incorrect in its reference to Ireland and in that it does not reflect the special position of the Sovereign as head of the Commonwealth.
These Commonwealth countries and the United Kingdom are full and equal partners, united in their allegiance to the Crown; and the Sovereign is Queen of each of them. The Commonwealth, therefore, has moved beyond the Statute of Westminster; and today, rather than that legislation on the title of the Sovereign should be undertaken only by the United Kingdom Parliament with the assent of the Dominions as recited in the Statute of Westminster, it is more appropriate that each Commonwealth country concerned should take the action appropriate to its own constitutional requirements.
The Prime Ministers and the heads of delegations agreed that the appropriate action in the established constitutional relationship would be for each member country to use for its own purposes a form of title which would suit its own particular circumstances, but that all should retain a common element. They agreed that the common element in the title of the Queen should include a reference to Her Majesty's other realms and territories and her title as head of the Commonwealth. The titles in the other Commonwealth countries are matters on which it will be for those countries to take the appropriate constitutional action. In this country the normal procedure is for Parliament to authorise the Sovereign to issue a Royal proclamation setting out the Royal titles, and that is what this Bill does in Clause 1.
There is one small difference between the Bill and earlier Measures to which I might draw the attention of the House. The Acts of 1901 and 1927 empowered the Sovereign to issue proclamations within six months of the passing of the legislation, and it might be asked why that precedent is not being followed. The answer is that the aim of the other Commonwealth Governments and of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is to take the necessary constitutional action to enable the various proclamations to be made simultaneously


before the Coronation. Already, legislation has been passed by or is progressing through the Parliaments in Canada, Australia and South Africa. It might not be possible, of course, for this aim to be achieved; and if a time limit were imposed it might even happen that further legislation would be necessary. A time limit in present circumstances would serve no useful, purpose; and in any case the Sovereign can exercise the power only once because Clause 1 of this Bill expressly refers to
… having regard to the said agreement,…
in the Second Recital. The Bill is short, but it deals with an important matter and I submit it to the House confident that it will be given a speedy passage through its stages with us.

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: As the Home Secretary has told us, the Government, in moving this Bill are acting as a member of the Commonwealth, and in accord with the agreement reached at the recent Prime Ministers' Conference. Moreover, the change which has been introduced in the Bill is one that it has been long recognised ought to be made at the next convenient opportunity. This, clearly, is a convenient opportunity and we therefore welcome and support the Bill from this side of the House. I am personally very glad that it is being introduced because I have been long an advocate of the principle of the Bill—the principle of a locally variable title, as it used to be called, adapted to the local needs of the various members of the Commonwealth.
This Bill may come to be an important landmark in the constitutional development of the Commonwealth. The Bill has two aspects, both of which must be borne in mind. The first is that it accepts completely the idea of the divisibility of the Crown, and we ought to realise that this is the first occasion on which that principle and idea have been fully accepted in a formal document. It is the idea that the Queen is equally Queen of each of her realms, that she acts only on the advice of her Ministers in each of the realms, and that in a certain sense there are seven Queens and not one Queen, or, at any rate, seven Crowns and not one Crown.
This is the culmination of a very long process of development. In 1937, when Canada proposed to set up diplomatic missions of her own in Japan and France, the King's Private Secretary recorded that this had rather taken His Majesty's breath away. It was then still a very novel idea that a Commonwealth country should be represented by an ambassador other than our own, but it is now fully recognised that the United Kingdom ambassador represents only the United Kingdom and not the other members of the Commonwealth.
Perhaps the most extreme example of the divisibility of the Crown occurred at the time of the abdication, which had to be separately endorsed in all the Commonwealth countries, so that for a few days we were in the extraordinary position of having two different Kings in different parts of the Commonwealth at the same time.
In recognising the principle of the divisibility of the Crown, this Bill only recognises the facts. It takes the doctrine to the ultimate conclusion of having a divisible title, and it takes it so far that in no two Commonwealth countries will the Queen have the same title.
I want to refer to one or two minor points. The first is the dropping of the word "Ireland" from the title, which we all welcome, because its inclusion was very anomalous; but I am not sure that the Government have been wise in substituting the words "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," instead of just the words "United Kingdom." The addition of "Northern Ireland" is surely unnecessary. There is no doubt that the United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland and it is elsewhere defined to include it. It is notable that all the other members of the Commonwealth who use the words "United Kingdom" in the title—Canada, Australia and New Zealand—do so without the addition of "Northern Ireland." What they have done we could also easily have done, and it is to be noted that our insistence on including "Northern Ireland" imports an extra variety into the Royal title which would not otherwise exist.
I welcome the disappearance of the words "Dominions beyond the seas," which, I hope will mark the formal disappearance of the word "Dominions" from the vocabulary of the Common-


wealth. This word is disliked in many parts of the Commonwealth because it suggests a distinction of status between the United Kingdom and other parts of the Commonwealth. The words "other Realms" in the title will give the word "realm" a greater currency than it has today, and it is a more acceptable word.
One aspect of the Bill is that it accepts the complete titular equality as well as the actual equality of all members of the Commonwealth, and it is very important to pay attention to matters of title as well as matters of reality. After the passage of all this various legislation through the Parliaments of the Commonwealth the Queen will be as much the Queen of India and of Ceylon as she is of England or of the United Kingdom.

Mr. William Ross: Do not anticipate trouble.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I think one is still entitled to talk about the "Queen's English" and the "Queen of England."
Some people will doubtless deplore the full acceptance of the principle of the divisibility of the Crown. They will think it is tantamount to a weakening of the Commonwealth: but if they take that view they will ignore the second aspect of this Bill, which is that there is in this title an emphasis, which has not been there before, upon the Crown as the unifying factor in the Commonwealth—the symbol of the unity and free association of the members of the Commonwealth—because every single one, including India, recognises the Queen as head of the Commonwealth. Never before has there been this express and explicit recognition of the Crown as such a unifying factor.
The two aspects together—the emphasis on divisibility and the emphasis on the Crown as a factor of unity—are not accidental. In the modern Commonwealth it is absolutely essential to separate the two roles of the Crown which have co-existed since the beginning of the Commonwealth. First, the Crown is the symbol of the equality and autonomy of all Commonwealth countries; the idea expressed in the fact that the Queen is Queen equally of all her realms. The second function of the Crown has been to serve as a symbol of the unity of the Commonwealth; the idea expressed

by calling the Queen the head of the Commonwealth.
The constitutional importance of this Bill is that it abandons the attempt to try to find a comprehensive formula binding those two roles in a single definition of the Crown as was done in the Balfour Declaration. That was done in the interests of unity, but, as so often happens if one tries too hard to produce unity, it produces disunity. The attempt to preserve intact the doctrine of the indivisibility of the Crown overlooks an important truth which we must accept if the Crown is to play its full role as a unifying factor.
The truth is that, whereas the Crown means something very real and important in all parts of the Commonwealth, it also means different things in different parts, and the Crown can play its full role only if we recognise those differences. Even in the old Commonwealth, as it was called before the membership of the Asian countries, there were very important distinctions of feeling towards the Crown which were too often ignored. There were differences, for example, between the feelings of many French Canadians or Afrikaaners and those of the great majority of people of British stock.
One danger of trying to impose the doctrine of indivisibility of the Crown was that it was thought to be an attempt to impose upon other Commonwealth peoples a feeling which was appropriate only to those of British stock. That was one reason the attempt to spread and maintain this doctrine always called forth a counter tendency to stress the divisibility of the Crown. For many years that was specially marked in Canada and South Africa, both of which are countries containing very large non-British elements.
What was true of the old Commonwealth is doubly true of the new. We must never forget that today those of British stock represent a minority in the Commonwealth as a whole and also a minority in countries like South Africa and Canada. Again, what was always true and is even more true today is that the role of the Crown as a unifying factor can be emphasised only if, as in this and similar Bills which are being passed elsewhere, the Crown is set free to find its own national and emotional levels throughout the Commonwealth.


I think that that will strengthen rather than weaken the Crown. On the emotional plane, if the Crown is set free in this way to find different levels in the emotions of all the inhabitants it will be found that it will encounter and call forth latent personal feelings of interest, respect and affection which are much more widespread throughout the Commonwealth than is often thought. We were all deeply moved by the very real expressions of grief that marked the death of the late King in countries like India, Pakistan and Ceylon. These feelings must be encouraged. They would be thwarted and stunted if an attempt were made to impose a single concept of the Crown upon the whole Commonwealth.
On the constitutional plane, too, only if the Crown finds its own level in this way will it be accepted as the symbol of unity. It is very significant that only when the divisibility of the Crown was fully accepted did we get a readiness to accept it also as a symbol of unity in the Commonwealth. Certainly, on no other basis than the separation of the two roles of the Crown can we possibly solve the constitutional problem of bringing a republic into a Commonwealth of which the Queen is the head.
The Bill will have very important consequences. It will usher in a period in which there will be a steady rise in the dignity, the stature and the status of the Crown. Because the Queen is Queen of each of her realms and, at the same time, head of the Commonwealth, she will in a new way be raised above her Ministers not only in this country but in other countries in the Commonwealth. She will not be advisable only by one set of Ministers, and certainly not in any special or peculiar way advisable by Ministers in this country. We in this country have to abandon—and this is what the Bill says—any special sense of property in the Crown. The Queen now, clearly, explicitly and according to title, belongs equally to all her realms and to the Commonwealth as a whole.
For example, it would no longer be appropriate for the Queen's movements about the Commonwealth to be determined only by the advice of Ministers in this country, and it would be quite wrong to do as was done in 1912, when His

Majesty's Ministers in the United Kingdom advised him not to visit a Commonwealth country because it would involve the prolonged absence of the head of the State from the United Kingdom. Today, the Queen is head of the State in all her realms, and that sort of argument cannot apply in the future.
Finally, there are changes and developments which would be appropriate to this new role of the Crown which I think it important to mention. It would be appropriate if the Queen's personal staff were drawn from all countries of the Commonwealth and not only from this country. It would be appropriate, too, if the Queen spent periods of time in other Commonwealth countries. It is as easy for the Queen to go from London to Canberra today as it was for Queen Victoria to go from Windsor to Balmoral. It will be very fitting for the Queen's next Christmas broadcast to be made from New Zealand instead of from London, as has been the case in the past. When the Queen is absent it would be right and proper if a Governor-General instead of a Council of Regency were appointed, doubtless a member of the Royal Family, so that the last formal equality between this country and all other Commonwealth countries would be recognised. When the Queen is absent from any other Commonwealth country, she is represented by a Governor-General.
The Bill is of much greater importance than it appears to be at first sight. It will usher in a period in which there will be a new development of the role of monarchy not only as the centre and symbol of Parliamentary democracy but in the new function as a symbol of the free association of independent nations.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I will detain the House only for a few minutes while I give a welcome to the Bill. It was right that an agreement should be made among representatives of the various members of the Commonwealth. The Crown is not only head of the Commonwealth, and not only today the main symbol but really the sole symbol of recognition of the association of the free members of the Commonwealth. Therefore, it behoves us to congratulate all the representatives who took part in arriving at this agreement. All I wished to say was that we all welcomed it, but I will add one or two other words.


I rather agree with the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) that inasmuch as we are legislating for the United Kingdom it is better that we should limit ourselves to those words. I am not at all sure whether sufficient attention has yet been paid to the sentiment, history, and tradition of Scotland but I am hoping that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has that country of origin, will be able to do so.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) I will detain the House only for a very few minutes while I respectfully put forward three points which I hope will have the consideration of my right hon. and learned Friend and of all other Ministers who have to advise our Gracious Sovereign in these matters.
My first point is that I note with much regret that both in the Bill and in the White Paper the Sovereign is described as "Head of the Commonwealth." Why not "British Commonwealth"? It may be a sentimental thing to say, but I believe that the word "British" is an honourable title—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about Indian?"]—and that every fairminded person would agree that the people of this country have played a tremendous part in the development of the old British Empire and of the Commonwealth as it stands today. Every Commonwealth country enjoys the British way of life as a result of the work that has been done by the statesmen of this country in past generations.
What does the British way of life mean? Briefly summarised, it is: fair play, the rule of law, and order. That has been extended to all countries: India, Pakistan, Burma, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada and, do not let us be afraid to say it, in a large measure to the United States of America. I respectfully hope that at the next Commonwealth conference, after the Coronation, this point may be reconsidered.
My second point automatically follows from the point I have already mentioned. I respectfully submit that the time has come to reconsider our whole attitude to the rules of the British Commonwealth club. I do not like the idea

of India, a republic, not owing complete allegiance to the head of the Commonwealth, and I think that is a matter which ought to be reconsidered at the next conference. Indeed, if any country does not wish to accept the rules I submit that we might be better without that country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I hope that what I am saying may bring about some careful thinking on this very important problem.
My third and last point follows from what was said by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). I could not agree more with him that it is a first-class idea that our Gracious Sovereign should spend more time in the Commonwealth. I put it forward with very great respect, because I believe that nothing would help more to bring about that feeling of unity which we want within the Commonwealth than for our Sovereign to find it convenient on occasions to go to the various capitals in the other Commonwealth countries and perform the ceremony of the opening of Parliament—for example, at Canberra—as she did so beautifully here in November of last year.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I oppose the Bill, for reasons which are given in the Amendment in which my hon. Friends and I——

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you calling the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to move his Amendment? If so, would it be possible for us to dispose of that Amendment early and to go on with the wider discussion?

Mr. Speaker: I propose to ask the hon. Member to move the reasoned Amendment which he has on the Order Paper. After it has been moved and seconded, I shall put the Question in such a way as will leave both the Amendment and the whole of the Bill before the House for free discussion.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I take it that after the Amendment has, been moved it will be competent for subsequent speakers to discuss the Bill as a whole.

Mr. Speaker: That is exactly what I said.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which does not provide for a historically accurate Royal Title for Scotland.
I was surprised that the Home Secretary, in outlining the Bill, failed to notice that this Amendment was on the Order Paper.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hoped—I cannot say more—that the hon. Gentleman would be able in due course to move his Amendment, and I looked forward—I cannot say more—to replying to it in due course.

Mr. Hughes: At any rate, it was obvious—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) drew attention to it—that in his survey of the panorama of the universe the Home Secretary forgot Scotland. In both the speeches from both Front Benches there was a disposition to regard Scotland as a minor satellite country that simply did not matter in this discussion. Now, I am not a Nationalist.

Mr. John Paton: But a Welshman.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not see any reason why I should apologise for that.
Further, I am not a Royalist. If my ideas were adopted there would be no problem to solve of a long, complicated title, because it would be a title as simple as that of the head of the United States of America. However, this is not a debate in which we are allowed to wander into such issues. I approach this question not as if it were a major question, not as if it were a question of any great social importance at all, and not even from any absolute constitutional standpoint, but from the point of view that the House of Commons should not support a Bill which does not provide for historical accuracy.
This is not a party matter at all, because I believe that in Scotland there are Conservatives, there are Liberals, there are all varieties of political opinion, who believe that the Government have in this respect treated Scottish opinion rather casually. I do not blame anybody but the Government. A very interesting constitutional dictum was laid down by Walter Bagehot, who wrote the history of

the English constitution, and who laid it down that the Queen must sign her own death warrant if the two Houses unanimously ascend up to her. I am not going as far as that. He added that it is a fiction of the past to ascribe to her legislative power.
The people who are responsible are the members of the Government, and I am surprised to know that the Prime Minister, who, just before the last General Election, came to Scotland and laid great stress on the fact that Scottish claims should be considered respectfully by this Government, has made no attempt at all to deal with what I believe to be a reasonable claim of public opinion in Scotland.
I wish to point out that in this matter the most influential organ of Conservative opinion in Scotland has rebuked the Prime Minister in a leading article. On 27th February the "Scotsman" said:
So far as the Royal numeral is concerned, it may be noted that the Government take full responsibility for advising the Queen to use this. No doubt, Scottish M.P.s will take the opportunity of raising this matter next Tuesday when the Bil comes up for Second Reading.
It added:
It is rather remarkable that adjustments should be made readily when members of the Commonwealth become sensitive to the overtones of words like 'Dominion,' while the Prime Minister cannot even begin to comprehend that Scottish people should have any feeling about the English enumeration of the United Kingdom's Sovereign.
When this opinion is expressed in the leading article of the most responsible Conservative paper in Scotland we are entitled to have the support of Scottish Members of Parliament from the other side on the ground that this is an opinion which is rather widely held. I think we are entitled also to have the support of the Liberal Party, because the Liberal Party appear to be the only party who have definitely come to the conclusion that home rule for Scotland is a reasonable demand; and so I am hopeful that we shall bring the Liberal Party into the Division Lobby, if the Government do not yield to this demand.
All that we are asking is that Scotland should be treated as reasonably and as sensibly as Pakistan and Ceylon. That is not a very extravagant claim. The Prime Minister consulted the Prime Ministers of Ceylon and Pakistan; but


he does not seem to have taken any particular trouble to consult a representative from Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland, I understand, has a predilection for the return of the Stuarts. Perhaps the Prime Minister thought that that right hon. Gentleman's opinion ought not to be considered as an impartial opinion in case he should recommend that a proclamation should be made in favour of James Stuart V of Scotland. [An HON. MEMBER: "James VII."]
In this matter I think we should pay some deference to what Her Majesty customarily says in her Gracious Messages to the House. She signs herself "Elizabeth Regina"—not "Elizabeth II Regina," but simply "Elizabeth Regina"—and it appears that when the reverend Chaplain prays for the Queen in this House, the prayer is for our most Gracious Sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth. So we are not really asking for anything unconstitutional or revolutionary at all: we are merely asking that in Scotland the Queen should be Queen Elizabeth, without any enumeration. This is a view which is, I believe, generally shared by logical, historical opinion in Scotland.
It is true that hon. Members doubt whether this opinion is considerable. I do not know whether it is or not, but I do know that there are—and I wish to dissociate myself from them—attacks that are being made on this inscription on the pillar boxes in Scotland. In my constituency they long learned not to do violent things of that kind—and this, of course, is undesirable, because it represents a private enterprise attack on a nationalised industry following the precedent set by the hon. Member who sits in this House for that pillar box.
These manifestations of popular disapproval, however, should be taken into account. When some Scottish Nationalists see the inscription "E II R" on a pillar box, they see red. The saving of revenue and the reduction of expenditure by the Postmaster-General alone should be sufficient reason to try to have a title and inscription which would cause no irritation to any section of the community.
There are other manifestations that this title causes some antipathy in Scotland, because in the news columns of one

of the Conservative papers at the weekend we were told that a prominent shop in the main street of Glasgow which had put the inscription "E II R" in its window had, as a result of exhortations from some of its customers, decided to take down the inscription. When the shopkeeper went to an insurance company—and here was an opportunity for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) to show his patriotism—the insurance company would not even ensure "E II R" against possible injury, so even the insurance companies show a very marked opinion in this respect; they were not patriotic enough to agree to underwrite "E II R." I can imagine that even the inhabitants of Peterhead and Barlinnie, who, in normal circumstances do not object to being guests of Her Majesty, might boggle at being the guests of "E II R."
I suggest this is a matter in which opinion in Scotland might he respected. There is time before the Coronation for advice to be given to Her Majesty that the title should he simply "Queen Elizabeth." This would appease sentiment in Scotland, in the same way as opinion in Ceylon and Pakistan has been appeased.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I beg to second the Amendment which has been so ably and felicitously moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes).
In regretting the absence of the Prime Minister on this occasion, realising fully that he has many heavy engagements, I cast no reflection whatsoever upon the Home Secretary, who has been charged with the mission of seeing this Bill through the House. I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's presence because, like the Holy Ghost, he is here in a triune capacity. As a Scotsman he is charged with the Home Department in England; he is also the principal Minister for Wales; in addition, he is a direct link with those ancient and honourable offices which used to be attached to the Royal Household, for his past derives from the King's Secretaries. I welcome his presence in that three-fold capacity, but particularly because he is a Scotsman and because he will, perhaps, hear a good deal about Scotland.


I regret the absence of the Prime Minister because he has taken charge of all Questions on this subject for the last 12 months. It is a little over a year since I first put a Question to the Prime Minister on this matter, asking him what he proposed to do to carry out the recommendations of the Commonwealth Conference of 1948. I followed that with another Question later in the year, and then a third Question. Finally, we had the White Paper which was issued a few days ago.
During that period of Question and answer, I thought the Prime Minister was excessively coy about revealing the Government's intentions. He said in reply to one of my supplementary questions—which you, Mr. Speaker, dignified as a speech, without, I am sure, implying anything caustic—that he was not prepared to make constitutional pronouncements in reply to a supplementary question. I accepted that. Later, he said that he had no statement to make. If we traverse the whole of last year we find that the Prime Minister had very little to say on the matter. Taking each Question by itself I have no criticism; but if we take the whole year in review it seems to suggest that until a few weeks ago the Government had given very little consideration to the matter.
After that hesitant attitude we are told in the White Paper:
Her Majesty's Government propose, subject to the passage of the Royal Titles Bill, to submit for Her Majesty's Pleasure that the Title for use in this country should be
and then follows the title. The point I make, which I hope is a valid one, is that part of that title had already been in use for nearly a year. I put down another Question, which the Prime Minister could not answer because he was in Jamaica and I was in bed, so that Question and answer were divorced, but he very kindly replied in a letter:
Her Majesty's Government take full responsibility for advising the Queen on the choice of a style as Elizabeth II,
so that there was Governmental responsibility accepted after a whole year.
I submit that that acceptance of Government responsibility, which was a very short answer, could have been given at almost any time during the 12 months

that had elapsed if consideration had really been given to the matter. It is not a sufficient answer to say that that outcome depended on the result of the Commonwealth Conference, because surely the Government had decided what decision they would arrive at in view of the fact that part of the decision had already been taken.
From that letter of the Prime Minister two points emerge. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to say something about the first one. If the Government accept responsibility, did they tender advice, and, if they tendered advice, when did they tender advice and what was the nature of the advice which they tendered?
Secondly, he might also consider this: apart from the Conference, what consultations were held with the Commonwealth, because on that a point does emerge? We are told that Ministers take responsibility for this decision. The point that emerges from that is this: what does the word "Ministers" mean? Does it mean simply right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench opposite, or does the use of the word "Ministers" in this connection mean the Ministers of the Commonwealth? I think that that point arises from the Questions and answers which have been put and given across the Floor of the House during the year, and from the letter which I received from the Prime Minister.
The White Paper goes on to say that the Royal title is incorrect in its reference to Ireland. It is the submission of the Amendment before the House today that not only is it wrong in its reference to Ireland but it is equally wrong in its reference to Scotland. We in Scotland have always recognised the English as a very kindly and generous people—

Mr. J. McGovern: Who circulated that?

Mr. Rankin: An old friend of the hon. Member—but they are somewhat careless at times in their expression. I do not think that the carelessness is always very deliberate, so I forgive my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) for the wrong use he made of the word "England."
As an example of what I mean, I want to refer to one of the official Coronation histories, issued for the purpose of the


celebration of the Coronation, entitled "The History of the Coronation." It is compiled by Lawrence E. Tanner, M.V.O., V.P.S.A., and I would suggest that that array of letters does indicate authority to speak on the subject.

Mr. Paton: What do they stand for?

Mr. Rankin: Notice of that question must be given.
He is also designated as Keeper of the Muniments and Library, Westminster Abbey. He starts his 7th chapter, on page 73, with the words:
On the eve of the Coronation"—
and mark this statement,
Queen Elizabeth II is the sixth Queen Regnant of England.
Is it any wonder that that phrase gives offence to many people in Scotland when it appears in a book issued by a person of authority and to be found in the Library of the House of Commons? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is perfectly true."] Then where does Scotland come in? Does it mean that she is not Queen Elizabeth II of Scotland? Is she simply Queen Elizabeth II sixth Queen Regnant of England? If that is so, then what is the position of Scotland in regard to the proposed style and title? Does the author exclude her, and is this House prepared to follow the lead of an antiquarian who appears to write with authority?
There is another explanation which arises in the minds of many people—that the words "Great Britain" are used only to dispose of Scottish claims and objections. Once they have been applied, England reverts to her evil historical practices. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, dealing with the Coronation Oath, in a statement to the House on 25th February, said that the change to which he was referring was introduced
as a result of the Act of Union with Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1953: Vol. 511, c. 2099.]
Then he went on to point out that in the Oath Scottish religion was preserved as a right guaranteed under the Act of Union.
But the right hon. Gentleman did not tell the whole story. There were more than Scottish religious rights defended as the result of the Act of Union. As a result of that Act, Scotland and England ceased to be independent countries. The Act of Union was not a merging of Scot-

land into England. We are not a satellite of England. I am no Nationalist—I want to make that perfectly clear—but the Act of Union did away with England and Scotland as independent units. It substituted a new name, a new flag and a new Great Seal.
These are the things which have been consistently ignored, not merely in the attitude of England—and I forgive them for that—but time and again in this House. People look on us as taking a rather narrow attitude, but our attitude is defended by a treaty which established that Act of Union between two equals, not between one who was dependent and another who was a great Power.
There is this other point which I want to make. One gathers that a great deal of attention has been given to the wishes of the Commonwealth in regard to the Royal designation. We make no objection to that. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire pointed that out in his speech. We make no objection to every attention being given to the wishes of the Commonwealth. But I want to ask, and it is implicit in the questions I have already asked: How much consideration, if any, was given to the wishes of Scotland? Was the Secretary of State for Scotland consulted? This, once again, is not raising any national bogy, but I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that a great many people in Scotland have written and spoken to me on the matter. Their interest arises not merely from the somewhat circumscribed view that a Nationalist takes. It is the active interest that people have in the association of what I can call without dispute two great nations. How are these things done? What goes on behind the scenes?

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it was not two great nations, but three?

Mr. Rankin: Had I the soft, winning accents of a Welshman I might deem myself worthy of saying a few words for Wales, but having the somewhat harsher accents of a harder clime, I confine myself to the Act of Union. We would have been glad to have taken Wales into partnership at that time had Wales been so minded.
In Scotland, a great deal of interest has been shown in how these things are


done. There may be something secret attached to them. I do not know. I want to relate my own experiences in this House. I hope that I may be able to indicate what those experiences were without casting any reflection on anyone associated with the work of the House. When I tried, a year ago last February, to put down a Question to raise this issue in the House, I was told, "You cannot put a Question down on that subject; it lies wholly within the Prerogative of the Sovereign."
I had to adopt certain artifices to get my Question on to the Order Paper. I found myself up against a great wall of silent opposition. One wants to be sure that the will of Parliament is supreme, and supreme always. I asked how much attention and consideration had been given to the wishes of Scotland, and I indicated that these matters stirred the interest of many people there. We should not judge that interest solely by the blowing up of a pillar box in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). Most of us realise that nothing much that is good can come from violence of that type. There I support the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, but we must see that there is no element of provocation in our attitude. If we condemn violence on the part of others, let us see that no element of provocation enters into our attitude.
I do not think that it was so very important that the numeral "II" should appear with the letters "E.R." In certain parts of Scotland I have seen pillar boxes which still bear the letters "V.R." and nobody bothers a great deal about that. It seems to me that there was an element of provocation in the insertion of the numeral "II" with the letters "E.R." I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make it clear that I am wrong, but there is a suspicion, caused by my own experience in the House and the hostility which was manifest when I sought to raise the matter, that the decision about the style and designation was taken without consulting the Prime Minister or anyone else connected with the Government.
That is something about which we in this House have to be careful. We are not denying the existence of the Royal Prerogative. Almost every statutory

decision of this House involves the Royal Prerogative. The exercise of mercy involves it, as does the appointment of Ministers, and so on. This debate will have served a useful purpose if it does nothing more than allow us to emphasise that, while accepting the provisions of the Bill under protest, the Royal Prerogative is something which can be superseded or curtailed by Acts of Parliament. Periodically, we exercise our supremacy by shutting the door in the face of Black Rod when he comes here to summon this House to another place.
The price of liberty has always been eternal vigilance. I am convinced that there are influences today which are prepared, given the opportunity, to challenge the sovereignty of Parliament. We must make it clear that in the attitude which we take to this Bill we do not accept the views of those people and that we assert the supremacy of this House. For the reasons I have given, I oppose the Bill and have pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

4.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: The House is oddly ill at ease today, I think, because it is doing a very great thing and, as often in the case of the English—and I use the word advisedly—it is embarrassed in so doing. The English do not like to feel themselves conscious of historic occasions and great acts. Yet today is the fruition of a whole line of policy which is, perhaps, the thing of which the people of this country have more right to be proud than of any other.
Here is an occasion when we in this House are passing legislation which is being paralleled by identical legislation in countries far distant from ours, in many cases countries with very different traditions and histories. For the first time the Queen is being proclaimed Queen of South Africa—and by their Legislatures—Queen of Canada, Queen of Ceylon. Never before has there been so proclaimed a Queen of Ceylon.
All these things are part and parcel of the action in which we are taking part today. It is no wonder that a certain embarrassment falls upon the House; because on such great occasions words are sometimes inadequate or pompous when we seek to describe the dignity and importance of the decisions now in train.


The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) rightly said that today we are, for the first time, placing upon statutory record the divisibility of the Crown. There are now seven Crowns, a point which has been a matter of constitutional difficulty and of fierce controversy for many a long year, a point which other great States have refused to acknowledge, and have fallen as a result of failing so to acknowledge. That is merely one of the effects of the legislation which we and the other Legislatures of the Commonwealth are passing as a result of the agreement which is before us today.
I do not agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock), who said that he thought it should be called the "British Commonwealth of Nations." I think its glory is that it has commended itself to so many people who do not regard themselves, and would be wrong in regarding themselves, as British, although I sympathise, of course, with his desire to emphasise the British aspect. But what else would one expect from the name Craddock, from the name Caradoc, from the name Caractacus, for that is the name he bears?

Mr. David Grenfell: And Boadicea.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No, he does not bear the name of Boadicea.

Mr. Grenfell: The name Boadicea means Victoria in Welsh.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That may well be so, but I was speaking of the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne which, believe me, does not mean Victoria or anything feminine. His attitude was in no way a feminine approach. I was merely saying that it was not surprising that someone whose name was Caractacus adopted the attitude with which my hon. Friend approached this question.
There are many people within the Commonwealth whose name is not Caractacus and who are not descendants of that branch of the human family at all. It is a great honour and dignity to the Crown and to the Commonwealth that it is welcomed and respected by societies in such widely scattered parts of the world as those which still wish to

call themselves members of the Commonwealth of Nations. We are entitled to take credit for that this afternoon.
But I think we should seek to rise to the dignity of the occasion. I do not feel that the House has risen to that dignity so far, and I say that unless we realise the importance of the change that is being made we shall be surprised by some of the developments which follow. We should not be taken aback by some of these developments when they come about. Because today we are taking a step which has seldom, if ever before in history, been taken by the head of a great constitutional constellation, the recognising and placing on an equal footing with itself, the originator of this whole conception, of those who have in other parts of the world, voluntarily or compulsorily, entered into association with it.
It is an experiment which may lead us very far and which may, let us face it, not be entirely successful. It is not only a bold experiment: it is an experiment carrying a whole world of growth within it. I have seen this development in my own lifetime, and in the lifetime of most of us present. I remember when the League of Nations was set up. The agreement was signed by the United Kingdom and the Dominions; but they were not set in type on the same level as the United Kingdom, because even till then it was held that the United Kingdom had a particular superiority of headship or leadership which differentiated it from the other members of the Commonwealth.
There are many other aspects of this legislation which should be considered. But I will, for a moment or two, devote myself to the Amendment and to the point brought out by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin), who seconded the Amendment. They object to this Bill because they say that it is not historically accurate. Historical accuracy here is almost impossible. The touchstone of this is, what is the alternative? How would one crystallise with accuracy, into a single phrase, or a single numeral, the complicated interweaving of the sovereignties of the two great nations of Scotland and England? The proof of that is to try to find some other way of doing it.


It is not enough, as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire said, to leave out the numeral altogether. One cannot do that. There are other sovereigns and there must be some sequence. It would be very difficult if we had to number even all the Kings of Scotland by the picturesque soubriquets attached to them from time to time—James of the Fiery Face, for instance, or the sovereigns of France of the Dark Ages, like Charles the Bald or James the Fat. There must in our modern life be some system of notation, and what is it to be?
The doctrine of those best able to judge is that in a union such as has taken place the highest numeral should prevail. I am bringing forward that suggestion as a way of dealing with this matter. Otherwise, we have to go back and renumber the sovereigns from the date of the Union of the Crowns, which would lead to some very awkward aspects, some of them unconsidered by the mover and seconder of the Amendment.
According to them, we should say that our Elizabeth the Queen is Elizabeth I, because she is the first Elizabeth of the United Kingdom. In that case, we have by now had Edward I King of Scotland, Edward II King of Scotland, and are looking forward to a possible Edward III King of Scotland. Were the hon. Member for South Ayrshire to disinter those bones from the grave and bring them once again to rule over Scotland, such an act might well bring prominent constituents of his, such as the Earl of Carrick—that being the title of Robert Bruce—from their tombs. I do not think the hon. Member would be able, with any conviction, to sing from the song, "Scots wha hae," of another prominent constituent of his:
See approach proud Edward's power—Chains and slaverie!
That is the Edward whose numeral he himself would apparently admit as one of the Kings of Scotland. I think we should find ourselves in inextricable difficulties if we attempted to move forward along those lines.
I do not press too strongly the argument, but there is no second Elizabeth in Canada, as there was never a first, because it may be said that Canada was not a Dominion when the first Elizabeth reigned. I do not say that

we should deny the title of Elizabeth II to South Africa because there was never an Elizabeth I of South Africa. We may say that those Dominions were then not kingdoms. But that is the sort of difficulty that we should certainly get into. We should by that argument have to consider the enumeration of the Monarch in relation to what would be the effect of any accession or secession of any part of the Dominions. We must allow historical accuracy to bow to some extent before practical possibilities.
As to the title which is here recommended as the title of the Monarch, I altogether disagree with the hon. Member for Tradeston that there is any suggestion that this is not taking place upon advice. The advice was stated and acknowledged by the Secretary of State for Scotland and others. Everyone knows that a Bill is brought forward in Parliament as a result of advice tendered to the Sovereign by her advisers.

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Rankinrose——

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I do not wish to be led away here.
The Bill is a practical attempt to solve a very difficult but very important question. I do not agree with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire that this is a matter of no great importance. It is a matter which is keenly and poignantly felt by a great many people. The position of the Crown is at least as keenly regarded by the people of this country as the position of many hon. Members of Parliament, to go no higher than that.
There is another old Scottish song which the hon. Member would do well to remember:
Ere the King's crown go down
There are crowns to be broke.

An Hon. Member: That is an incitement to violence.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That is not at all an incitement to violence. It conveys that whenever an attempt is made to violate the Constitution those who attempt to violate it will run into unexpected difficulties.

Mr. Rankin: What about Ulster?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We are dealing here with a practical problem of very great complexity. We are also dealing with a sentimental problem which touches


the heart and imagination of a great number of people. Like most Scottish hon. Members, I have received many letters from people on both sides, probably more from my own side in politics than from the other. We are dealing, among other things, with two of the great Queens of history. The fame of Mary Queen of Scots has gone all over the world, and it is by virtue of her descent from Mary Queen of Scots that our present Queen sits on the Throne.
Mary Queen of Scots is one of the great Queens of the world; we in Scotland cannot be expected to ignore the existence of Mary Queen of Scots. Equally, however, we cannot expect England to ignore the existence of Queen Elizabeth. One has been immortalised by Spenser and the other by Ronsard; they are both great and famous Queens. We cannot leave Elizabeth out of the sequence of the Queens of this country, nor would it be fair or reasonable to do so.
I repeat my practical suggestion that the doctrine should be enunciated that the highest numeral prevails. By the way, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, in preaching historical accuracy, seemed to think that there had been only four James's. As a matter of fact, there were six James's and there really have been seven James's. If there were a further James, I contend that he should be James VIII. I do not think James II should be so enumerated in the history. I think he is James VII, because he was the successor of James VI.

Mr, Wedgwood Benn: I suspect that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has invented a formula to cover this. What about William the Lion? William V was surely the predecessor of Queen Victoria on the Throne of this country if the order of the highest numeral is maintained.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am not saying that that has been the doctrine up to now. The illustration I gave was enough to make that clear. Nor did I invent the formula. I have taken the counsel of the highest heraldic authorities to which I could have access. It is neither an invented formula nor a new one. It has not been the practice in the past, but I contend that it should be the practice in

the future. It would deal with the difficulty that we now have for the immediate purpose before us.
We have a proposal in this Bill which, first, is, in general, one of the highest and most dignified proposals that has ever been put before any legislature in the world in history—that the sovereignty of the other component parts of the Commonwealth is equal to the sovereignty of the United Kingdom; and secondly, that the style and title of the Sovereign who is the first to hold this honour, is not, as perhaps one should logically say, Elizabeth I, but Elizabeth II. I say that it should be Elizabeth II because, as a matter of actual fact, we cannot ignore the existence of the renown, and the hope, which is inspired in the breast of everyone who has read and studied the English tongue, by the sound of the word "Elizabeth."

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Cahir Healy: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. O'Neill) and I represent one-third of the geographical area of Northern Ireland. Our objection to this Measure is that the Government are putting certain words into the Queen's title and the Bill, the effect of which will be that, while the Queen is described as Queen of Northern Ireland, in practice she will be called the Queen of Partition. I am sure that Her Majesty will not like that description.
Notwithstanding the artificial border which has been thrown across the country, Ireland is still a nation. I am sure that, as a constitutional Monarch, Her Majesty will carry out the wishes of her Ministers, but, at the same time, I believe that the Government have set her an unpleasant task. They have set her to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the politicians; the Crown is here being used definitely for a political purpose.
The border counties have many times since 1918 proclaimed their will and wish, namely, that they should be united with the Republican portion of Ireland. The Six Counties are an essential and inalienable part of the Irish nation. It surely is an anomaly that the late Mr. Bonar Law and Lord Carson in this House and in another place in 1920 expressed the wish that there should be a united Ireland notwithstanding the 1920


Act, and that their successors today should in this Bill be attempting to make partition permanent.
The Government are endeavouring to give partition a resting place in the Queen's title, "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." That is giving a special recognition to the divided portion known as Northern Ireland. The late Lord Glentoran, who, as Captain Herbert Dixon, was for many years a Member of this House, and was afterwards a Member of the Northern Ireland Government, declared that they in Northern Ireland never wanted partition, that they accepted it at the solicitation of the British and by way of a compromise, and that they preferred to be governed from Westminster. The Prime Minister, therefore, is trying in this Bill to do what his Tory colleagues did not attempt in 1920, namely, to make partition as permanent as he can.
I would remind the House that the Irish race are scattered over the world and are particularly strong in the United States of America. This proposal is carried in face of the suggestion of the Commonwealth Premiers when they were here a short time ago, for they have refused to incorporate in their Royal title any reference to Northern Ireland. That is a very significant point, and one that the right hon. and learned Gentleman skated over very easily today. The British Government in this Bill have merely adopted a shabby, divided garment for their own Queen's Coronation which the Commonwealth Governments have already discarded as being past use, for they respect Irish public opinion.
The White Paper admits that the Royal title is not correct in its reference to Ireland. Instead of leaving Ireland out of the Bill, it proceeds to drag in the truncated portion of the country, that portion that is held down by force of arms. Is this not an effort by the British Government to save their face in view of what is happening in Egypt and in Africa? Ireland is better entitled to freedom than any of those countries because she is a compact nation bounded by the sea. She ought to be free to set up any form of government which her people prefer.
It is well known that by very large majorities the people have favoured a Republican form of Government in 26 of the 32 counties, and if given the opportunity tomorrow there would be a Republican Government in the 32 counties. It is an especial humiliation for Irishmen to find their nation beheaded. It was rather unskilfully done by the late Mr. Lloyd George after a harassed people had been persuaded by the Black and Tans. The Queen has the sympathy of the whole Irish people in the unfortunate position in which she finds herself, being in the hands of, and acting on, the advice of such Ministers as she has today, and our hope is that she will be in the hands of wiser councillors soon.
Partition would never have been accepted by the signatories to the Treaty had it not been believed that they were voting, as some of the Tory Members believed, for a united Ireland. But nothing of the kind has eventuated. The Prime Minister himself cannot have any great faith either in Northern Ireland or in partition, because I should like to remind the House of the famous telegram he sent to Mr. De Valera just after he had come into his kingdom as Prime Minister. He said to him:
This is your chance. Come and join us. Ireland a nation.
What did he mean by that if he did not mean that partition was passing and there would eventuate soon a united Ireland? The Prime Minister obviously has his good moments, and on one of these he could see a united Ireland emerging.
The designation "Northern Ireland" is geographically incorrect because the Northern Ireland Government hold sway only over six of the nine historic counties of Ulster. Donegal, the most historic and one of the largest, is in the Republic. In the process of creating the area known as Northern Ireland, the British Government actually divided four of the dioceses. They beheaded the dioceses as well as the nation. They divided the dioceses of Armagh, Clogher, Derry and Kilmore. If the Cabinet could not find a correct designation or form of words in which to describe the stolen part of Ireland upon which to establish a foothold, why give permanency in this legislation to something which nobody at the


time it was introduced thought would last? The Government have no right to fasten upon Her Majesty the odium of a title linked up with an area which Britain's own literary ingenuity cannot describe correctly.
Surely it is an anomaly that a Nationalist like myself should be protesting against putting such an unpleasant duty upon the shoulders of the young Sovereign just at the beginning of her reign. The Government should bear that burden themselves.
Partition has not brought peace to Ireland, North or South, and it has not brought prosperity. We have had internments and we have a very large unemployment problem, about five times greater than the problem here. Therefore, the question must be re-examined to see whether peace and prosperity is not linked with national unity. This is the worst period to have introduced a Measure of this kind, because the Government are trying to give stability to a politcal condition that has produced the results I have indicated. This Bill is a tragic mistake. Everyone in Ireland knows that Partition has failed, and it is only a matter of time until we reach a crisis such as is looming ahead in Egypt, Africa and elsewhere.
I should like to quote the views of the Minister for External Affairs in the Republican Government. He speaks for a large majority of the Irish people. He said in an interview:
If this announcement is confirmed by British legislation, it will be deeply resented by the Irish race and will but steel their determination that the Counties cut off will sooner or later be restored to the rest of Ulster and the rest of Ireland. These six north-eastern counties,' the Minister said, 'are an inalienable part of the Irish national territory. It is too bad that the British Government should be induced to link the British Crown and Royal Family so directly with the cruel wrong of Partition, which is the last remnant of British aggression in Ireland. After all,' the Minister added, 'this is the beginning of the second half of the 20th century. The British Government have already been made fully aware of the attitude of the Irish Government and people on the matter. It is to be noted that it is only the British Government which proposes to use the words "Northern Ireland" in their new title; these words are not in the form of title adopted by any other Commonwealth Government. The sooner the British Authorities recognise that their maintenance of a divided Ireland is as much against the interests of the British people as of the Irish people and democracy everywhere, the better it will be for all concerned.'

Among the people of Northern Ireland, 450,000 of them, practically one-third of them, heartily re-echo those sentiments and that warning. I submit that it is a scandal to find the British Government trying by a side wind to link the Royal Family with a building which will one day topple on their heads. We do not mean any disrespect to Her Majesty. Far from it.
Some hon. Members think they can afford to ignore Ireland. Can they? There are millions of Irish in the United States, a country with which at the moment Great Britain has at least very close financial links. It is true that we have no guns, that we have no bombs, that we have no navy, but we have a spiritual kingdom which extends over the world and is particularly active in most of the English-speaking colonies. These people can never be placated and can never be friends with this country as long as Partition remains and the six counties are cut off from the Irish nation.

5.23 p.m.

Professor Sir Douglas Savory: I regret to say that it is only because of the tragic death of the Chairman of our Party, our beloved colleague Sir Walter Smiles, that the duty of replying today has fallen upon me. I shall do my best to discharge what is a very difficult task—a task which he would have carried out with much greater eloquence and ability than I can possibly hope to do.
The answer to the allegations of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Healy) about Northern Ireland is that Southern Ireland agreed to this description. They agreed to it over and over again.

Mr. Healy: No.

Sir D. Savory: In the famous Treaty signed by Lloyd George on 6th December, 1921, the term "Northern Ireland" appears in Article after Article, notably in Articles 11 and 12. When Southern Ireland had their autonomy, when they accepted the Free State, at the same time they accepted the term "Northern Ireland."
They insisted, as part of the Treaty, on the setting up of a Boundary Commission presided over by Mr. Justice Feetham, a very eminent South African judge. When the Boundary Commission were about to


report, unfortunately there was a leakage, and on 7th November, 1925, the "Morning Post" published a forecast. This was so factual and so detailed that it was assumed to be true. The Boundary Commission, so far from transferring the whole of the counties of Fermanagh and Tyrone to Southern Ireland, as had been hoped by the Nationalists, proposed to transfer a part of East Donegal to Northern Ireland—if the forecast of the "Morning Post" is to be believed. This produced a panic in Dublin and the Prime Minister, Mr. Cosgrave, sent a telegram to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, asking to be received. He came over and Mr. Stanley Baldwin fixed the conference the very next day.
Mr. Cosgrave and Mr. Kevin O'Higgins came over and met Mr. Baldwin in Downing Street. Mr. Baldwin asked them whether they would not allow Sir James Craig, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, to be summoned to this conference. The conference was continued at Chequers, and finally a very notable Tripartite Agreement was reached, an agreement between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State.
The Preamble of that Agreement is so important, so conciliatory and, I would say, so beautiful that I would ask permission to read one or two of its passages:
Whereas, the progress of events and the improved relations now subsisting between the British Government, the Government of the Irish Free State, and the Government of Northern Ireland and their respective peoples make it desirable to amend and supplement the said Articles of Agreement so as to avoid any causes of friction which might mar or retard the further growth of friendly relations between the said Governments and people; and
Whereas, the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State, being united in amity in this undertaking with the Government of Northern Ireland, and being resolved mutually to aid one another in a spirit of neighbourly comradeship, hereby agree as follows:
May I remind the House once more that this Agreement was reached on the initiative of the Prime Minister of the Irish Free State? It was signed on behalf of Great Britain by Stanley Baldwin, Winston S. Churchill, W. Joynson-Hicks, Birkenhead, and L. S.

Amery. It was signed on behalf of the Irish Free State by the Prime Minister, William T. Cosgrave, by Kevin O'Higgins and Ernest Blythe. It was signed on behalf of the Government of Northern Ireland by the Prime Minister, Sir James Craig, and by Charles H. Blackmore, Secretary to the Cabinet of Northern Ireland.
This Agreement was freely reached, and I only hope that in the few remarks which I shall make I shall continue in the same spirit of moderation as is set forth in this Preamble. The first Article states that the boundary between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland should be that of the Act of 1920; that is to say, the whole of the Six Counties, together with the Cities of Belfast and Londonderry, were permanently to be part of Northern Ireland. That was unanimously agreed by the signatories whose names I have read out.
However, Mr. Cosgrave did not go back empty handed to Dublin, because Article 2 of the Agreement abrogated the famous Article 5 of the Treaty of 1921, in accordance with which the Irish Free State had undertaken to shoulder its liability to a fair share of the National Debt and of war pensions. Mr. Stanley Baldwin. Prime Minister said in the House of Commons that according to the British Treasury this was a liability of no less than £150 million. The liability was such that the Prime Minister of the Irish Free State, Mr. Cosgrave, said it prevented him from launching a loan either in London or in New York. That terrific liability was wiped out by Article 2, through an act of almost unparalleled generosity on the part of the British Government.
I have just said that the Agreement was signed by, among others, Mr. Kevin O'Higgins. A letter from Lady Baldwin says:
At the Imperial Conference later on, I met Mr. O'Higgins at an evening party given to the Free State—it was shortly before he was murdered—and I reminded him of that historical time, and his comment was 'The best day's work I ever did, and the best day for Ireland.'
He was referring to the signing of that tripartite Agreement which still holds good and, I contend, cannot be repudiated unilaterally.
When introducing the Second Reading of the Ireland Bill on 11th May, 1949,


the present Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, used these memorable words:
As the House knows, we took a decision recently to retain within the Commonwealth the Republic of India, and no one would wish that any country should be forced to leave the Commonwealth against its will. If that was so with regard to India, it is certainly so with regard to Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, and it is quite impossible that we should take up a position which would suggest that Northern Ireland should be excluded from the Commonwealth and United Kingdom against its will.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1858.]
In fulfilment of that pledge a subsection (2) was inserted in the Ireland Bill by the Labour Government which was then in power:
It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland remains part of His Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom and it is hereby affirmed that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part thereof cease to be part of His Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
I should like to pay a tribute to the Leader of the Opposition, the former Prime Minister, for the fair way in which, in the Ireland Bill, he dealt with this complicated question. We look upon that subsection inserted by the Labour Government as the charter of Northern Ireland.
We have been told today that in the other titles adopted by the various Dominions there are simply the words "United Kingdom," but in the title to be conferred on Her Majesty the Queen in this country the words "Northern Ireland" have been added. Why? Simply and solely because it is the wish of Northern Ireland. We desire that this association should be insisted upon, if possible, more emphatically than ever because we want our people to realise it more than ever. They fought with this country during the whole of the last war. They were the bridgehead, because it was in Northern Ireland that all the American troops were trained. As the Prime Minister then said, Northern Ireland was indispensable to the safety of this country because, had not that northern channel been kept open for the convoys to reach Glasgow and Liverpool, the United Kingdom would have perished in the late war. That is why we ask this House today to confirm that addition of "Northern Ireland" to the title of Her Majesty.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: I apologise to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory) for not following him into the devious and rather gloomy past of Irish political history, because I would prefer to leave it to some other hon. Member to deal with the remarks he has made.
I support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), because I believe that we should have historical accuracy in the designation of the Royal title for Scotland. In listening to the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) I was astonished at the way he slid over the Scottish aspects of this matter, because in this House we all know of his great ability and of how well versed he is in this subject. In view of the fact that in Scotland the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is a perfervid Scot and appeals, as such, to the nationalist element much more than many of us on this side of the House, I thought he would have played up to the things he has supported in Scotland over a long period in order to woo Scottish nationalist support. What the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, and the points he made, regarding countries such as South Africa, Ceylon and Burma, would have been as valid without the use of the numerals. It would not make any difference, and that dressing up of the matter could be dispensed with so far as the title is concerned.
I want to find out what steps were taken by the Prime Minister to consult Scottish opinion. There was rather a laugh about the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire, who is a Welshman, should have moved the Amendment. There is nothing wrong in that. A Liverpool Scot, who is Minister for Welsh Affairs, is dealing with the matter today from the Despatch Box on behalf of the Government and will be replying to this reasoned Scottish Amendment. Therefore, we should not treat in any jocular way the fact that my hon. Friend moved the Amendment.

Sir William Darling: The Liverpool Scot to whom the hon. Member refers was born in the constituency of Edinburgh, South.

Mr. Manuel: That is more than the hon. Member can say for himself. I rather think that he was born this side of the Border, and not on the other side. He therefore cuts himself out of this discussion if birthright is to be the criterion. I do not, however, agree with that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a perfect right to act as he is acting today, in the same way as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire has.
What organisations in Scotland were consulted? Scottish Members who have been asked by their constituents to inquire about these things have a right to know. Could we be told of any conversations which took place? For very obvious reasons we must probe this matter to the full. After all, there were discussions, as outlined in the White Paper, between the Prime Minister and other Prime Ministers and representatives of Commonwealth countries. If that were so—and that is factual—surely we in Scotland are entitled to say that we have an equal right to be consulted by the Prime Minister in just as real a way as the consultations he had with the Commonwealth countries.
It is within the knowledge of the House that there have been other occasions when the Prime Minister has made great play of the fact that he has consulted Scottish opinion. At election time, the Prime Minister always liked to go to Scotland. He liked to parade at huge meetings in big football stadiums and to give certain pledges on behalf of his party if they were returned to power, such as the pledge, when he said that the Labour Government ought to be doing more to meet Stalin, that if he was returned to power he would certainly further that aim.
That was consulting Scottish opinion. If on that occasion, in a matter which I do not think is quite as closely allied to Scottish public opinion as the present one, although possibly of greater importance—I do not dispute that—the Prime Minister felt that Scottish opinion was important, he would have been right to have met people who could talk to him authoritatively in this instance, and he ought to have had the reasoned opinions of reputable Scottish organisations on this most important matter.
I think that, for obvious reasons, the Secretary of State for Scotland would

have been consulted. After all, he is the elected and titular head of Government in Scotland, and he must have been approached by the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State is a member of the Cabinet. He has high rank in the Government, and I am very sorry that he is not present. We seem continually to be dealing with the excellent hon. Gentlemen who are Joint Under-Secretaries, but the Secretary of State for Scotland in this important matter ought to be on the Front Bench.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: My right hon. Friend was here when all the previous Scottish speakers were addressing the House. He went out for a short time when the debate took an Irish turn, but he will be back quite shortly.

Mr. Manuel: I hope that the debate is not still in the "Irish turn." [Interruption.] I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State for Scotland has now arrived back on the Front Bench.
I think that, for obvious reasons, the Secretary of State would have been consulted by the Prime Minister in regard to the title for the Queen so far as Scotland is concerned. The Secretary of State comes into this matter in a very real way. I am certain that his forebears must have had something to do with the Treaty of Union of 1707. Possibly the Earl of Moray was a signatory, and his signature is in the Lords Library. At any rate, both by birth and by present responsibility the right hon. Gentleman had a right to be consulted, and he had a right to fight for Scotland and for Scottish opinion in this matter. What we ask the Secretary of State—I hope that he will be coming to the Dispatch Box to tell us—is what actually took place between him and the Prime Minister arising from their discussions on the Bill.
I do not want to deal with this at too great length, because it should not be a party matter. I think we should all agree on all sides of the House that it ought not to be a party issue. It ought not to be a question as between Scotland and England, but a question of historical accuracy. That is all we want to get. We ought to examine briefly the relevant sections in the actual Treaty of Union, where both countries were brought together.
I reinforce in the strongest possible manner the remarks of my hon. Friend


the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin). Scotland and England came together at that time as equal partners, and not with Scotland as an appendage of England. Section 1 of the Treaty indicates that as from 1st May, 1707, the Kingdoms of England and Scotland ceased to exist as independent political units when the new kingdom, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, came into being. The section reads:
That the two kingdoms of England and Scotland shall upon the first day of May which shall be in the year one thousand seven hundred and seven and for ever after be united into one Kingdom"—
the two kingdoms were made into one—
by the name of Great Britain"—
I point that out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who spoke from the Opposition Dispatch Box and designated Her Majesty the Queen of England. The Treaty of Union laid down in Section 1 that the United Kingdom was to be regarded as Great Britain—
and that the ensigns armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint and the Crosses of St. George and St. Andrew shall be conjoined in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit and used in all flags banners standards and ensigns both at sea and on land.
Section XXIV definitely carries that intention into further actuality, and we must have regard to that.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's interesting historical argument, but, as he starts with 1707, he makes it difficult. If he is enumerating the kings in historical accuracy, he should begin where we shared the monarch, and not when we united the kingdom. I am seeking information as a mere Sassenach and am probably unapprised of the deep importance of these matters, but should not Edward VII have been Edward I of the United Kingdom? If so, if there is a James in future, will he become James I of the United Kingdom, or James III of England and James VIII of Scotland?

Mr. Manuel: That is a very large Committee point; possibly it could be ironed out later when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill. I think my hon. Friends should raise it then. I am trying to deal with the facts arising from the Treaty of Union of 1707 where Scots, in signing that Treaty, were definitely

trying to make certain safeguards for the future so far as Scotland was concerned. Are those safeguards being observed in the Bill before Parliament?
Section 1 shows quite clearly that both were equally coming into one kingdom. Why should we at this stage try to carry on the backbround and traditions of one of the kingdoms while letting the other fall? We must not do that, but must find some other way out. I do not think the Government should try to aggravate public opinion in Scotland. I am no Scottish Nationalist, but I do not think we should give levers to people of that opinion in Scotland to cause trouble. I think it was very bad that that pillar box should have been flaunted in Edinburgh as it was. I did not think at that time that it should have been placed as it was, and neither should it have been designated as it was. Any ordinary pillar box would have suited the convenience of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) just as well as the one which was blown up—much better, because it would not have been interfered with.
Whether we like it or not, I put it to the Secretary of State for Scotland that we must hold the right hon. Gentleman responsible. He ought to have made certain that at least historical accuracy should be preserved. I am presuming that he was consulted. If he allowed himself merely to be shoved aside and his views not taken into consideration that would be worse, but, if the Prime Minister did consult the Secretary of State for Scotland, he must tell us what transpired and what sort of conversation ensued. I rather think it would be a one-sided conversation, but I hope that at least there was some return from Scotland. Although possibly the right hon. Gentleman has large ties in England, his position has equipped him to answer on behalf of the people of Scotland. I ask him, did he agree to the title of Elizabeth II? If he did, he must take the blame for this gross historical inaccuracy, because that cannot apply in Scotland and be historically correct.
If he did disagree with that, as I think he ought to have done, why was his dissent not even noted? There is nothing in the White Paper about it. There is notice that consultations took place with other Prime Ministers and representatives


of other Commonwealth countries, but not a single word about the Secretary of State for Scotland to the effect that he was even consulted, nor was his dissent noted if he was against this historical inaccuracy. Why were his views not noted? Were his views treated with contempt? Was he merely brushed aside? With his great historical background and his eloquence at the Dispatch Box. he could very ably have put forward the case for Scotland.
The right hon. Gentleman is in the position of the titular head of the Government with his great background of nobility and ties with the Morays—people who had to do with the original Treaty which he is trying to break up in the respect that he is not observing historical accuracy. What did he do; what did he say? Has he failed Scotland? Will be come to the Dispatch Box tonight and justify it? It is always a job to get him to the Dispatch Box as he is rather backward and likes to give publicity to the Under-Secretaries, who are, I agree, very capable. But I think that on this major issue he should not abrogate his strength and opinions to come from other throats than his own at the Dispatch Box tonight. He has to justify either his activity or his inactivity in this matter.
I want to go on record as being completely against the historical inaccuracy proposed in this Bill, and I hope the Government will give some thought to the Amendment with a view to meeting Scottish opinion in this matter.

5.48 p.m.

Sir William Darling: It has been said that the English are a most tolerant people and I think that the House has been exceptionally tolerant this afternoon. I think it rather surprising but very interesting that the two principal speakers, the most vocal and revolutionary in their views, have declared themselves Republicans.
I think it is a happy augury for the Crown that the Republican representative, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and the declared Republican representative the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Healy), have come forward with great solicitude for the Royal House. I think that good things may well flow not only

from the intervention of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire but more happily from the intervention of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone this afternoon.

Mr. James Carmichael: The hon. Member does not know where it is.

Sir W. Darling: I do not suppose that that observation might do the hon. Member much good with his constituents. but it is extremely well meant. As to the observation that I do not know where Fermanagh is, let the hon. Member ask his hon. Friend from Fermanagh and South Tyrone whether he thinks that I know Fermanagh well enough. Let him address his question to his hon. Friend. not to me.
The fact is that the commotion of which we have heard this afternoon has been very real. This is not merely a ripple on the surface of our Parliamentary life. The feelings that the Republicans have expressed are also deeply held by people in Scotland. But I do not think there is any doubt whatever that this matter has been exaggerated beyond the measure of its real importance. I speak with some feeling. Reference was made to the fact that it was in the constituency of Edinburgh, South that a pillar box had been erected with an offending sign and had been eight times destroyed by mal-intentioned persons.
I should like to tell the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), because it is relevant to this subject, that one of my achievements in this House, on behalf of my constituents, is that for many years I petitioned the Postmaster-General for a pillar box to be placed in that expanding part of my constituency. I petitioned the Government of the party of which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire is a member. Had they been more punctilious and quick in carrying out my request the pillar box would have been erected not bearing the letters, "E.R. II" but the letters current at that time. So the real reason for these disturbances in my constituency is the neglect and delay—not for the first time—of the former Administration.
These manifestations, as I say, are not to be commended. They are most undesirable. But, as other hon. Members


have pointed out, they are the expression of a widespread opinion in Scotland that this matter has not been considered, or has been considered mistakenly. I do not join with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire in his challenge to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend can look after himself. There are other ideas which may be new to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and which I may be able to place before him shortly.
Without exception, the Press in Scotland have condemned the apparent neglect of Scottish public opinion. It is not only the opinion of daily newspapers, such as the Scottish edition of the "Daily Herald" or the "Daily Express." It is the opinion expressed in the "Scotsman," the "Glasgow Herald," the "Dundee Courier" and the "Aberdeen Journal." Throughout the whole of our country there has been marked comment on this subject. Like myself, many have been mystified, because they have been given no clear indication—doubtless there is a clear indication to be given—of what lay behind the mind of the Government in advising Her Majesty to take this particular Royal cypher as her own.
I must deal with the problem of insurance, because that affects the standing of an industry with which I am not unconnected. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire made a mis-statement to the House in saying that no insurance company in Scotland would insure goods bearing the letters "E.R.II." If the hon. Member is in any difficulty in that respect I can put him in touch with a dozen good Scottish companies which will cover civil commotion, and cover it adequately. So that slender prop to a poorly constructed argument is now removed.
I was struck by what was said by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). He commended the Bill to the House as a Measure the importance of which could not be overestimated. I liked his phrase that Her Majesty's title might be "locally varied." If that counsel has been considered it certainly should have been followed. It has been followed outside this island and might be followed to some extent, unless there is a good reason against it, in Scotland.
I come now to the suggestions and the arguments we have heard from those who

share with me the representation of Scotland in this House. On several occasions it has been said that this is historically inaccurate. I cannot accept that view. In spite of my English birth, I have as much knowledge of Scottish history as most of the hon. Members who have spoken. I would put forward this theory—it is no more than a theory—advanced by one of my constituents, and which I have accepted. It may commend this Measure to the House, and get over the difficulties and sharpness of view which hitherto has been apparent.
My constituent points out that the union of the Crowns was the datum line. Before that there was no history. With the union of the Crowns there was a new phase in our joint history. The two countries became one. It is from then that we begin to give names and titles to our Sovereigns. Let it not be forgotten that there has been a Royal lady who is still with us, making her residence in Scotland; a Queen Elizabeth, known, adored and worshipped by the people of this country—Queen Elizabeth, the Royal Mother. She was the first Queen
Elizabeth in Scotland——

Mr. Manuel: No.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman has said that he will investigate this on the grounds of historical accuracy. I am putting before him a sentimental view which may not be intolerable and may be the basis of a unity of understanding. I am suggesting that the first Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom was the Queen Mother, who is still with us. She was the Queen Elizabeth I—[HON. MEMBERS "No."] None the less I am putting forward that theory which can be justified by sentiment. If the hon. Members for South Ayrshire and Central Ayrshire and Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) are taking their stand upon the Treaty of Union, that all history before that is a closed book and that we start again with the Treaty of Union, my contention is irresistible. The Royal lady now on the Throne is either Elizabeth II or Elizabeth I. I submit that she is Elizabeth II, because the first Queen Elizabeth, the consort of King George VI, was Elizabeth I of England and Scotland.
Would right hon. and hon. Gentlemen tell the Royal lady now on the Throne that she is to deny the fact that her mother, the Scots-born Queen Elizabeth,


was the first? Is Her Majesty to claim precedence over her mother? I suggest that the historical interpretation must give place to other interpretations. The historical interpretation has been challenged and overthrown by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) on numerical grounds; and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has pointed out that the historical basis leads to all sorts of inadequacies, anomalies and incomprehensibilities. But what I have put forward, the theory of a constituent, herself a woman——

Mr. McGovern: Is very slick.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Member says that it is very slick, but it is historically and sentimentally true. We know that the first Queen Elizabeth in Scotland and in England was Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. If the Royal lady chooses to accept—of her own initiative or on the advice of her Ministers, I care not what—the title of Elizabeth II, she is in fact truly stating her case. She is the second Elizabeth we have had since the Treaty of Union in Scotland, as in England.
If my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite do not agree they need not be too unhappy, because I have yet to read them two telegrams which I have today received. They have good support in this matter, because the senders of these telegrams do not agree. The first reads:
Queen Mother was Consort not Queen. Your suggestion very silly because title Elizabeth II inaccurate and insulting. Writing.
The other telegram reads:
Do not degrade Scottish intelligence. Consort Elizabeth no more first than Mary was third Scots.
I am happy to allow that to hon. Gentlemen, who, I think, are a bit weak on the historical side.

Mr. McGovern: Is the suggestion of the hon. Member that at the present time we have two Queens Elizabeth, and that as the Queen Mother is still living she is Elizabeth I and the present Queen Elizabeth II?

Sir W. Darling: The suggestion I am making is interesting and practical. There is no need to number the person who is, in fact, the first. Queen Mary was never called Queen Mary I. The

wife of William III was referred to only as "William and Mary" so that this affection for numbers, for simple mathematics, is not very helpful. My suggestion, although it may not be logical, although based on sentimentality and opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite who are great historical students, has the merit of being acceptable.
None would deny the fact that there was one Elizabeth in our memory the first Queen Elizabeth in England and in Scotland. She was the first Queen Elizabeth in England and Scotland at the same time, and, when her daughter was called upon to follow her Royal mother, she became Elizabeth II. Those who took that decision have my support, and I, for one, in spite of the fact that pillar boxes have been burned in my constituency, shall still continue to support that decision.
This has been a very important and a revealing debate, particularly in regard to the two Republicans and the Welsh-Scottish Republican. The poet Robert Burns came from the constituency of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, and he wrote:
It's no in titles, no in rank,
That moves men;
Nor Lunnon Bank.
He added his conclusion that
The heart's aye, the past aye—
That makes things right or wrong.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Sir W. Darling: I am paraphrasing the quotation in order to give hon. Members the chance of correcting me.
Robert Burns asserted that titles and rank were not important, and I suggest that the heart of Scotland and the heart of England will wish God-speed to this Bill, not only because of its Imperial possibilities and its necessity in the rearrangement of the British Commonwealth, but because it gives expression to the regard they have for their Gracious Queen.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: After that introduction to Robert Burns, and after hearing the pronunciation of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), I wondered whether it was Robert Burns I or Robert Burns II. For quite a long time, the hon. Gentleman


was going round in circles; certainly, he went round in oratorical circles today, but the trouble was that he kept coming back to the arguments of his opponents. He referred to this passion for numerals and said it was complete nonsense, because we do not need numerals. That is exactly what we on this side of the House are saying.
The suggestion that there would be confusion between Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II is quite nonsensical. As the hon. Gentleman himself said when referring to the joint holding of the Crown by William and Mary, no one ever referred to Mary II or to Mary Tudor as Mary I. There was no need for the numeral, because no confusion could arise at all.
The point is this. The proposal in the White Paper is a historical inaccuracy, because it says:
Elizabeth the Second. by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain …
The United Kingdom of Great Britain only started in the year 1707. There has been no Queen Elizabeth since then, and, therefore, the present Queen Elizabeth is the first Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) may shrug his shoulders and say, "Well, I really did not mean it," but there is an undoubted tendency in England to talk about the Queen of England and the King of England, and to forget that, by the Act of Union of 1707, the independent Kingdom of Scotland vanished, and so also did the independent Kingdom of England.
Thereafter, for the first time, there was the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom Crown. It was necessary—and this is probably the answer to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) who was asking questions on historical grounds—because the Union of the Crowns in 1603 left us with two separate kingdoms, and, as a matter of fact, if we follow that up to the reign of Queen Anne, there was no foregone conclusion that, after her death, there would be the same ruler in England and Scotland. As a matter of fact, an Act was passed through this House in order to try, by means of a little political and economic

blackmail, to appeal to the Scottish estates to accept the Act of Settlement that would be arrived at in England, and that was the reason William III, and. later, the advisers to Queen Anne, put such stress on the importance of getting the Act of Settlement, so that, for the first time, there would be the United Kingdom.

Mr. Hale: Is not my hon. Friend rather overlooking the point that Scots themselves did refer to the gentleman who was called the Old Pretender as James VIII, and that was eight years after the Act of Union—in 1715? After that, the gentleman who died in Rome some years later was regarded by them as James IX, and I understand that the present Secretary of State for Scotland has still some claim to be regarded as James X.

Mr. Ross: I must correct the history of my hon. Friend, because the gentleman who died in Rome could not possibly have been James IX, because the name of the Young Pretender was Charles Edward.
I was really surprised at the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) presuming to lecture us on this point. If I remember rightly, he once talked about the Scotsman's heritage, but Elizabeth I was no part of the Scotsman's heritage. She is probably remembered best, of all people, by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is a descendant of the Earl of Moray who was the half-brother of Mary, Queen of Scots, and it was Elizabeth I who ordered the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots. How can we expect any Scotsman to accept by implication this English heritage of regarding Elizabeth I as a great Queen? The new start was made in 1707, and there would have been absolutely no confusion——

Mr. John McKie: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Queen of Scots at that time had been outlawed from her own country.

Mr. Ross: She went to England by invitation of the Queen, who put her in prison. The invitation was given at a time when Elizabeth I thought she would not accept it.
The point of this matter is not the important social aspect of the question, but this irritation of the real feeling in Scotland that the Government have just


ignored Scottish sentiment, and that it comes from a Government of people who, right from the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, for five years went around Scotland telling us that it was we Socialists who were ignoring and insulating Scotland. We now get the situation in which the Secretary of State, who, although he has had a year in which to tell us something about it, has not yet given us any idea either of his responsibilities for this decision or the justification for it. In fact, we do not even know whether he was consulted or not.
I want to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) for his attitude on this matter. He took quite a long time to get from the Prime Minister the reply that the Government took full responsibility for advising the Crown on the style of Elizabeth II. I do not know whether the people of Scotland fully realise that the responsibility rests on the shoulders of Her Majesty's Government. It is typical of Her Majesty's Government that they have to get a Scotsman today to try to get them out of the hole into which they have got themselves. As we have seen so often before, we see the Home Secretary and Minister for Welsh Affairs coming forward. It is regrettable that we should have had to wait for this important debate to raise this matter, because we are inclined to emphasise this Scottish point which is really a small point in this very important Bill.
I fully appreciate what was said by the Home Secretary and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker)—that what the Bill does is to take note of changes in the situation of the British Commonwealth which far too many people on the opposite side of the House have denied. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have clung tenaciously to the word "Empire." This Bill kills the idea of the British Empire. For the first time we have a Queen who is not merely Queen of the United Kingdom but, in an independent capacity, Queen of the various Commonwealth countries such as Pakistan, Ceylon, Australia and New Zealand. This is a great development that will maintain the close links which many of us thought would have been severed by the shattering circumstances of the Second World War.
The idea of the Commonwealth survived because there was close contact between the Government and the peoples of the Commonwealth. Let Her Majesty's Government also learn a lesson from that and remember the wishes of people at home and those dependent members within the United Kingdom itself. There was absolutely no need to introduce the words "Northern Ireland." We have been told already that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. The words should be left as "Queen of the United Kingdom." There was also absolutely no need for the Government to advise the inclusion of the quite unnecessary numeral II, which gives offence to many loyal subjects in Scotland.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) referred to the embarrassment which the House had felt in dealing with this Bill. I confess that I feel more than my own share of embarrassment in rising to agree with those hon. Members who have opposed it. But there my agreement with them ceases, because my objection to this Bill relates to the central fact of what it does and what, when it is passed. will be done by virtue of the Prerogative.
My right hon and learned Friend the Home Secretary said in his speech that this Bill departed in a substantial point from the Statute of Westminster. I think that it was a matter of perhaps more importance than he devoted to it. When the Statute of Westminster gave statutory recognition to the legislative independence of the Parliaments of the Empire it recognised in its Preamble two voluntary limitations upon that independence. Those two limitations were that any alteration either in the succession or in the title of the Crown would be made, if at all, only by the agreement of all concerned.
It is important that the House should have the words of that Preamble in its mind.
… it would be in accord
said the Preamble,
with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom:…

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Surely the hon. Member has read the Bill. The second paragraph of its Preamble makes it quite clear that agreement has been reached.

Mr. Powell: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to me for a little longer there would have been hardly any need for that shallow intervention.
The Statute of Westminster preserved what were then considered to be the two essential unities—the unity of the person of the Monarch, by maintaining that the succession, if changed, should be changed simultaneously and in the same way—and the unity of the identity of the Monarch by maintaining that the title, if changed at all, should be changed simultaneously and in the same way. The second of those two unities, the unity of title, is deliberately departed from by the agreement which this Bill implements. Agreement there has indeed been; but that agreement is only an agreement to differ.
It is a consequence of that agreement to differ that, whereas in the only previous case since the Statute of Westminster where the Royal style has been altered, that alteration was specified and written into the Statute which made it, the alteration has here been left unspecified both as regards time and as regards nature. Therefore, to see what alteration is proposed in virtue of this Bill, we have to look to the White Paper.
The new style for the United Kingdom which is foreshadowed in the White Paper is not quite the first attempt at a new style which has been made. Over a year ago, on 7th February, when Her present Majesty was proclaimed, she was proclaimed by an unknown style and title and one which at that time had no statutory basis. It is not quite the same title as is proposed in the present White Paper. I am not quibbling over whether the use of a title in a proclamation requires statutory authority or not. I would only remark in passing, however, that it is remarkable that we should have this necessity for Commonwealth agreement and for legislation by the Parliaments if upon that solemn moment of her accession the Queen could be proclaimed by a title unknown to the law. I notice that the other Dominions proclaimed her by her existing style.

Mr. Gordon Walker: No.

Mr. Powell: With only an addition, following that style, equivalent to the asseverance of loyalty which followed our own expression of the title in the Proclamation. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that that was the case if he makes the comparison.
When we come to the proposed new style for the United Kingdom, I find in it three major changes, all of which seem to me to be evil. One has been very clearly and correctly pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick. It is that in this title, for the first time, will be recognised a principle hitherto never admitted in this country, namely, the divisibility of the Crown.
The second feature of the new title is the suppression of the word "British," both from before the words "Realms and Territories" where it is replaced by the words "her other" and from before the word "Commonwealth," which, in the Statute of Westminster, is described as the "British Commonwealth of Nations."
The third major change is that we have a new expression and concept—the "Head of the Commonwealth." I shall deal with these three major changes in order.
The term "Realms," which is to appear in the new title, is an emphatic statement that Her Majesty is the Queen of a considerable number of separate kingdoms. Hitherto, that has not been this country's acceptance of the term. For example, in introducing the corresponding Royal and Parliamentary Titles Bill in 1927, the then predecessor of my right hon. and learned Friend said:
… the word 'Realm' is constituted an alternative expression for the 'Dominions of the Crown'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1927; Vol. 203, c. 1265.]
That had come to be the case by a well-recognised historical process. If you look back at the Act of Succession, Mr. Speaker, you will find a reference there, in respect of England, to the Imperial Crown of this Realm and France and Ireland. By the process of events the claim to the throne of France was dropped and by the successive Acts of Union the three Kingdoms of England, Ireland and Scotland, each with their separate historical origins, were merged into one. There was one realm, over which was the Imperial Crown of the


United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the territories thereto belonging.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Henry VIII also referred to the Imperial Crown, meaning of this kingdom alone.

Mr. Powell: I am not dealing with the word "Imperial." Of course, Henry VIII was referring to England; but when he used the word "empire" he meant it in the medieval sense and was proclaiming the independence of this country from the Holy Roman Empire. But that is a by-way.
Within this unity of the realm achieved by the Acts of Union there grew up the British Empire; and the unity of that Empire was equivalent to the unity of that realm. It was a unit because it had one Sovereign. There was one Sovereign; one realm. In the course of constitutional development, indeed, the Sovereign began to govern different parts of that realm upon the advice of different Ministers; but that in itself did not constitute a division of the realm. On the contrary, despite the fact that he or she ruled his or her Dominions on the advice of different Ministers, the unity of the whole was essentially preserved by the unity of the Crown and the one Kingdom.
That unity we are now formally and deliberately giving up, and we are substituting what is, in effect, a fortuitous aggregation of a number of separate entities. I have not deliberately exaggerated by using the word "fortuitous." Here we find these different entities defining the identity of their Sovereign differently. By recognising the division of the realm into separate realms, are we not opening the way for that other remaining unity—the last unity of all—that of the person, to go the way of the rest?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: My hon. Friend may recollect that when the Dominion of Canada was set up there was a proposal that it should be called the Kingdom of Canada. If that is the case his claim that this diversity of realms is an innovation falls to the ground.

Mr. Powell: I did not say it was an innovation; I said it is an innovation in the view of this country. Hitherto, in the United Kingdom, the view has never been

held that there were separate kingdoms. It has been held that there was one single realm.
Incidentally, I notice that I am not alone in my repugnance to this change. Unless the proceedings in the Australian Parliament have been misreported, the same feeling was alive in Australia. In "The Times" of 19th February the Australian Prime Minister is reported as saying:
He had strongly opposed the suggestion that the Queen should be named Queen of Australia without first mention of the United Kingdom, because this would tend to work against unity.
The report goes on:
It was unnecessary anyway, as the Queen was, under strict law, Australia's Queen, because Australia had never made an Act of secession.
As I read those words they bear witness to the same sense of repugnance to the recognition of a division of the realm.
I come now to the second major alteration which will be made by the eventual use of the Royal Prerogative—the suppression of the word "British" from the description both of Her Majesty's territories outside the United Kingdom and of the Commonwealth. Incidentally, and as a minor by-product, this suppression of our nationality has resulted in what is really nonsense. Strictly speaking, to describe the Queen as Queen of the United Kingdom and "Her other Realms and Territories" is meaningless.
We describe a Monarch by designating the territory of which he is Monarch. To say that he is Monarch of a certain territory and his other realms and territories is as good as to say that he is king of his kingdom. We have perpetrated a solecism in the title we are proposing to attach to our Sovereign and we have done so out of what might almost be called an abject desire to eliminate the expression "British." The same desire has been felt—though not by any means throughout the British Commonwealth—to eliminate this word before the term "Commonwealth." I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition in Australia also said that:
He thought the time had come to change the description of the Commonwealth in the Statute of Westminster as the 'British Commonwealth of Nations' into the 'British Commonwealth'.


Why is it, then, that we are so anxious, in the description of our own Monarch, in a title for use in this country, to eliminate any reference to the seat, the focus and the origin of this vast aggregation of territories? Why is it that this "teeming womb of royal Kings," as Shakespeare called it, wishes now to be anonymous?
When we come to the following part of the title we find the reason. The history of the term "Head of the Commonwealth" is not a difficult one to trace. I hope I may be forgiven if I do so very briefly. The British Nationality Act, 1948, removed the status of "subject of the King" as the basis of British nationality, and substituted for allegiance to the Crown the concept of a number—I think it was nine—separate citizenships combined together by statute. The British Nationality Act, 1948, thus brought about an immense constitutional revolution, an entire alteration of the basis of our subjecthood and nationality, and since the fact of allegiance to the Crown was the uniting element of the whole Empire and Commonwealth it brought about a corresponding revolution in the nature of the unity of Her Majesty's dominions.
The consequence of that Act immediately followed. If the British dominions were not those territories which acknowledged the Queen, but were an aggregation of separate countries enumerated in a statute, it might be possible not only to add or to subtract, but for any of those territories to throw off their allegiance without any consequential result; and that was, in fact, what happened.
In the following year, India declared its intention to renounce its allegiance to the Crown and become a republic. Because of that change in the whole basis of unity of this great entity, that intention did not involve the consequences which would have followed as little as a year before. The declaration of the Prime Ministers, of 28th April, 1949, included the following passage:
The Government of India have declared and affirmed India's desire to continue with her full membership of the Commonwealth of Nations and her acceptance of the King as the symbol of the free association of those independent member nations and as such the Head of the Commonwealth.
It was accordingly enacted by the India (Consequential Provision) Act,

1949, that the law of this country should continue to apply to India as it would have done if India had not renounced its allegiance to the Crown. The result of that is, as we have found in a queer way in the only definition of the term "Commonwealth" on the Statute Book—it occurs in one of the sections of the Finance Bill, 1950, because a Member of the then Opposition put down an Amendment to draw attention to the omission— that the Commonwealth consists of
Her Majesty's dominions and India.
The status of India resulting from these changes and declarations is an ungraspable one in law or in fact. The Indian Government say that they recognise the Queen as the head of the Commonwealth. Well, I recognise the right hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Attlee) as Leader of the Opposition, but that does not make me a Member of Her Majesty's Opposition.

Mr. Frederick Messer: Thank God.

Mr. Powell: I see, Mr. Speaker, that any serious remarks on this subject must be addressed to hon. Members on this side of the House.
When we endeavour to ascertain into what relationship with Her Majesty's dominions this recognition of the Crown as Head of the Commonwealth has brought India, we find ourselves baulked. It was intended that this relationship should, in fact, be uninterpretable. It is, therefore, necessary to inquire what is the minimum content which entitles us to recognise unity at all, and then to ask whether that necessary minimum content is applicable in the case of India.
I assert that the essence of unity, whether it be in a close-knit country or in a loosely-knit federation, is that all the parts recognise that in certain circumstances they would sacrifice themselves to the interests of the whole. It is this instinctive recognition of being parts of a whole, which means that in certain circumstances individual, local, partial interests would he sacrificed to the general interest, that constitutes unity. Unless there is some such instinctive, deliberate determination, there is no unity. There may be alliance, indeed. We may have alliance between two sovereign Powers for the pursuit of common interest for


a particular or for an undefined period; but that is not unity. That is not the maintenance or the creation of any such entity as we refer to by the name "Empire" or "Commonwealth."
I deny that there is that element, that minimum basic element, of unity binding India to Her Majesty's dominions. I deny that there is present, in that former part of Her Majesty's dominions which has deliberately cast off allegiance to her, that minimum, basic, instinctive recognition of belonging to a greater whole which involves the ultimate consequence in certain circumstances of self-sacrifice in the interests of the whole.
I therefore say that this formula "Head of the Commonwealth" and the declaration in which it is inscribed, are essentially a sham. They are essentially something which we have invented to blind ourselves to the reality of the position. Although the changes which will be made in the Royal titles as the result of the Bill are greatly repugnant to me, if they were changes which were demanded by those who in many wars had fought with this country, by nations who maintained an allegiance to the Crown, and who signified a desire to be in the future as we were in the past; if it were our friends who had come to us and said: "We want this," I would say: "Let it go. Let us admit the divisibility of the Crown. Let us sink into anonymity and cancel the word 'British' from our titles. If they like the conundrum 'Head of the Commonwealth' in the Royal style, let it be there."
However, the underlying evil of this is that we are doing it for the sake not of our friends but of those who are not our friends. We are doing this for the sake of those to whom the very names "Britain" and "British" are repugnant——

Mr. Gordon Walker: Would the hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Powell: We are doing this for the sake of those who have deliberately cast off their allegiance to our common Monarchy.

Hon. Members: Who are they?

Mr. Nicholson: They died in thousands during the war.

Mr.Hector Hughes: Mr.Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North) rose——

Mr. Nicholson: I appreciate my hon. Friend's giving way, and I thank him. I beg him to measure his words and to remember the vast sacrifices and the oceans of blood that India has poured out in the past, and to recognise the deep affection and feeling that exist throughout India towards this country.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I, who have had the advantage and privilege of serving with the Indian Army in the war, am not likely to be unmindful of it; but it was an army which owed allegiance, an enthusiastic allegiance, which was its very principle of existence and its binding force, to the Crown. That allegiance, for good or for evil, has been cast off, with all that follows.
Now, I am not under any delusion that my words on this occasion can have any practical effect, but, none the less, they are not, perhaps, necessarily in vain. We in this House, whether we are the humblest of the back benchers or my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury himself, are in ourselves, in our individual capacities, quite unimportant. We have a meaning in this place only in so far as in our time and generation we represent great principles, great elements in the national life, great strands in our society and national being.
Sometimes, elements which are essential to the life, growth and existence of Britain seem for a time to be cast into shadow, obscured, and even destroyed. Yet in the past they have remained alive; they have survived; they have come to the surface again, and they have been the means of a new flowering, which no one had suspected. It is because I believe that, in a sense, for a brief moment, I represent and speak for an indispensable element in the British Constitution and in British life that I have spoken. And, I pray, not entirely in vain.

6.42 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I should like, if the House will agree, to divide the remarks that I have to make into three parts, one on what I would call the Scottish point, and with which this debate started; second, a short word on the Irish matter that has been raised; and third, one or two general remarks in


answer to the debate. I think that I ought to face first of all the complaint in the Amendment, that the Bill does not provide——

Mr. E. Fletcher: On a point of order. I take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking a second time with the leave of the House?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking to an entirely different Question from the Question previously put to the House. The Question now is whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It only shows it is a good thing sometimes to attend most of the debate. I wanted first of all to deal with the point that has been made and developed by hon. Members from Scotland, that the Bill does not provide for an historically accurate Royal title for Scotland, because that is the gravamen of the Amendment. I think that there has been a great deal of genuine misunderstanding on the subject, and I think everyone will agree that it is one on which it is easy to engender heat if one does not get the matter quite clear. Therefore, I would ask the House just for a moment to look at the history whose accuracy is impugned.
I agree with the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) that the important thing, and the primary point, is to look at the Act of Union; and, more particularly, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire did, the Articles of Union. I am glad he informed the House of the content of Article I—the start of my argument—namely, that from 1st May, 1707, and for ever after, the two kingdoms of England and Scotland shall "be united into one Kingdom by the name of Great Britain." I think we all start from that point. Afterwards, as the hon. Gentleman will see, the references in the Articles of Union are to "the United Kingdom of Great Britain." That was given statutory effect by the Parliaments of both countries before it came into operation.
That made a difference, because before that time—and this was the point of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale)—from 1603 to 1707, although the two Crowns of Scotland and England

had devolved on the same person, two separate kingdoms existed, and the appropriate procedure was to refer to James VI and I or James I and VI, according to The nationality of the person making the reference.
But then the problem arose. Since the Union of 1707 it was deemed necessary, whenever a sovereign succeeded who bore the same name as a previous sovereign or sovereigns of either England or Scotland, to distinguish him or her from his or her predecessors by adding the appropriate numeral. It might have been more logical for the kings and queens of Great Britain—that is, the kingdom which, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire pointed out, was founded with the Articles of Union—to assume new numerical designations from the time of the Act of Union. In that case William IV would have been William I, and Edward VII and Edward VIII would have been Edward I and Edward II, being the first kings of that name of the United Kingdom.
However, I think everyone would agree, looking back on it, that, however that theory may appeal, in practice it would lead to major historical confusion. Indeed, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) pointed out very wittily some of the confusions that would have arisen. Therefore, that was not regarded as practical, and I do not think anyone has ever pressed a claim to that suggestion.
I ask the House to look for a moment at the first of the precedents which I have mentioned—that of William IV—because it has been mentioned in this debate. Before the Union of the Crowns, two Williams had reigned over England and one over Scotland, and during the period after the Crowns were united William III of England and II of Scotland ruled over both Kingdoms, but the only William to rule since the Union of 1707 was designated William IV, although he was only the third to reign over Scotland.
As far as I know, that procedure, that numeral order of procedure, was never questioned at all. There was a slight question on the accession of Edward VII. I looked it up. There was a Question in this House, and the Lord Advocate, replying to the Question in 1901, said:
I candidly confess I have tried very hard to find, and cannot find, a Scottish grievance


in the King's designation as Edward VII. It seems entirely a matter of convenience of citation, and it would lead to considerable confusion if the statutes were cited in Scotland as those of Edward I of Scotland.
With great deference to that old friend of many of us who was Lord Advocate at that time, I think that that may be described as a dusty answer in both senses of the phrase. I quote it only to show that a dry-as-dust answer was all that was necessary to deal with the feeling that was shown at that time.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: As a matter of fact—I do not know if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has seen it—there was a petition signed by 300,000 people that is still in the museum at Glasgow.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Despite that, it is clear that it did not arouse much feeling at the beginning of the century, so that apart from William III, which was before the Act of Union, we have William IV, Edward VII and Edward VIII. That is the point I wanted to emphasise. In view of the suggestion made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvin-grove, it is interesting to note that, happily, the method he advocated as to the use of the highest numeral has been followed consistently since the Act of Union; and that is the method that has now been applied. It is important also to bear in mind that all the other countries of the Commonwealth, each of which, like Scotland, owed no allegiance to the Crown of England in the 16th Century, have agreed to the use of the numeral "II" in the Queen's title. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire will see that Ceylon and Pakistan have also accepted this numeral.
Now let us just look at one or two other alternatives. I do not think anyone could reasonably argue that the Queen should be styled "Elizabeth II of England and Elizabeth I of Scotland." The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire has destroyed the basis of that argument by founding his case on the Act of Union. I know that one could object to the Act of Union as an historical exercise, but I do not think it would be very profitable. Therefore, I do not see that that suggestion helps us. It would be a reversal of history, apart from raising many difficulties.

Mr. Manuel: I, personally, do not see anything wrong with the designation "Elizabeth I of Scotland and II of England." It sounds all right. It has a more poetic flow than the prosaic suggestion in the Bill; and, I think the Home Secretary would agree, it would be historically accurate.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No. That is the point. I am not making a debating point, but emphasising what is the real point. I think that the hon. Gentleman and his bon. Friend the Member for Tradeston destroyed that argument by emphasising that for 246 years the kingdom over which the sovereign selects the title is that of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. His suggestion would, therefore, be a reversal of history—I put this to him for his serious consideration, which I know he will give it—it would be a reversal of history, apart from the fact that the weight of historical precedents are against it. It would also be against the taking of the numeral "I" for the first sovereign of that name who was sovereign of the United Kingdom.
I ask the House to note that the White Paper makes it clear that Her Majesty's Government accept full responsibility for this matter. The procedure is that after consultation—and after this Bill is passed the procedure and machinery is that of proclamation—the Queen must make that proclamation but the Queen makes a proclamation on the advice of her Ministers, and her Ministers must take full responsibility for it. That is made quite clear in the White Paper, and it is, of course, constitutionally undeniable.
These matters were fully and carefully considered. It might add to the gaiety of this House if it were possible to repeat in the House the discussions between Her Majesty's Ministers for the time being before conclusions are arrived at, but I do not think anyone can urge that as a practical measure. The collective responsibility of the Government stands, and I can assure those who have been worried that these matters were most carefully and fully considered.
I want to say only one word about what I may call the Irish point——

Mr. Manuel: Before the Home Secretary leaves that——

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to continue? He knows that I never hesitate to give way, but we are being interrupted at seven o'clock, and if he will allow me to develop this point I will try to let him know afterwards the answer to any question he has in mind.
I want to make this point with regard to what I may call the Irish section of the debate. In the United Kingdom the title suggested is that of "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." That is the territorial description of the United Kingdom for which the title is being given. There is no difference in content. In the title for these islands it has been traditional—and I think always done—to set out the description of the territory envisaged.
I want to say only one word in answer to the general point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). It is easy to make difficulties, especially verbal difficulties. I have tried to put before the House the reality. My hon Friend will realise, as we all will, that Empire and the conception of great and far-flung col-

lections of people must take different stages as the history of the world moves on. I can realise what hon. Members of this House felt when one Empire went down to ruin at Yorktown. I can realise what I myself, and many who hold my view, felt when the conception of Kipling—
Daughter am I in my mother's house But mistress in my own"—

was changed with new circumstances.

What I will not allow for a moment is that this great co-operation of nations which we have seen working together, enabling people to speak with one voice after conference, can be reduced by verbal analysis to be made to appear in the world to be nothing. It is something far greater than that. It is the conception of co-operation. On that I believe that, not only our generation but our children and our children's children will be able to make a still greater contribution to the world.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 328; Noes, 39.

Division No. 112.]
AYES
[6.58 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt Hon. P. G. T.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Aitken, W. T.
Bullard, D. G.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J C


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Burden, F. F. A.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Alport, C. J. M.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Campbell, Sir David
Foll, A.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Cary, Sir Robert
Finlay, Graeme


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Champion, A. J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Channon, H.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Awbery, S. S.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Follick, M.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fort, R.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Foster, John


Baldwin, A. E.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Barlow, Sir John
Coldrick, W.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Cole, Norman
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Colegate, W. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Collick, P. H
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Benson, G.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Birch, Nigel
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gibson, C. W.


Bishop, F. P.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Godber, J. B.


Black, C. W.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Blackburn, F.
Crouch, R. F.
Gooch, E. G.


Blenkinsop, A.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C


Blyton, W. R.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Gough, C. F. H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Darling Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Gower, H. R.


Bowden, H. W.
Davidson, Viscountess
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bowen, E. R.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bowles, F. G.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Deedes, W. F
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Deer, G.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hale, Leslie


Braine, B. R.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Cot. W. H.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Donner, P. W.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hardy, E. A.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hargreaves, A.




Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Snow, J. W.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Soames, Capt. C.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Sorensen, R. W.


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Markham, Major S. F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hay, John
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sparks, J. A.


Hayman, F. H.
Maude, Angus
Speir, R. M.


Heald, Sir Lionel
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Mayhew, C. P.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Stevens, G. P.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mellor, Sir John
Stewart, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Messer, F.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Holt, A. F.
Moody, A. S.
Storey, S.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Morley, R.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.
Studholme, H. G.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Mort, D. L.
Summers, G. S.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Moyle, A.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Mulley, F. W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hurd, A. R.
Murray, J. D.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Teeling, W.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nicotson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Nutting, Anthony
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Oakshott, H. D.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Odey, G. W.
Thornton, E.


Janner, B.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thurtle, Ernest


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Turner, H. F. L


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Turton, R. H.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Osborne, C.
Usborne, H. C.



Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Vane, W. M. F.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Viant, S. P.


Kaberry, D.
Pargiter, G. A.
Vosper, D. F.


Keenan, W.
Parker, J.
Wade, D. W


Kenyon, C.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Kerr, H. W.
Pearson, A.
Walker-Smith, D. C


King, Dr. H. M.
Peart, T. F.
Wallace, H. W.


Kinley, J.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Pitman, I. J.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Lambton, Viscount
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Popplewell, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Porter, G.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Proctor, W. T.
Wellwood, W.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Raikes, Sir Victor
West, D. G.


Lewis, Arthur
Remnant, Hon. P.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Lindgren, G. S.
Renton, D. L. M.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Lindsay, Martin
Rhodes, H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Wigg, George


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Robinson, Sir David
Willey, F. T.


Logan, D. G.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Willams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Longden, Gilbert
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


McAdden, S. J.
Russell, R.S. Williams,
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


McCallum, Major D.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


McKibbin, A. J.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Wills, G.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Scott, R. Donald
Wilson, Geoffrey(Truro)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wood, Hon. R.


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Simmons, C. J.



MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Mr. Heath and Mr. Drewe.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Snadden, W. McN.





NOES


Bartley, P.
Hamilton, W. W.
McGhee, H. G.


Bence, C. R.
Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)
McGovern, J.


Brockway, A. F.
Herbison, Miss M.
McInnes, J.


Clunie, J.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Brien, T.


Forman, J. C.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
O'Neill, Michael (Mid Ulster)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Jager, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Oswald, T.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pryde, D. J.


Grimond, J.
MacColl, J. E
Rankin, John







Reid, William (Camlachie)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Yates, V. F.


Richards, R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)



Ross, William
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Steele, T.
Timmons, J.
Mr. Emrys Hughes and




Mr. Manuel.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Vosper.]

It being after Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business) further Proceeding stood postponed.

ILFORD CORPORATION BILL (by Order)

Second Reading deferred until Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL TITLES BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Vosper.]

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: In view of the debate we have had on Second Reading it might be more convenient if the Committee stage of the Bill were postponed to enable those who have taken a view opposed to the Second Reading to put down the Amendments they desire to put down.
This is a matter of great constitutional importance. We have had a lengthy debate on Second Reading. I cannot believe that the matter is one of such great urgency that we ought to depart from the usual traditions of this House in controversial legislation of allowing those who are opposed to a Measure to have an opportunity of putting down Amendments in Committee. It is most inconvenient for hon. Members to do that if the House proceeds immediately to the Committee stage, then to the Report stage and then, as I understand the Government contemplate, to the Third Reading.
I therefore suggest that, in accordance with Parliamentary tradition, unless there is an over-riding consideration of urgency or unless we are dealing with uncontroversial legislation, the House should not proceed immediately to the Committee

stage. The Leader of the House is a great Parliamentarian, always interested in preserving the rights of minorities. I am sure that he would agree that the right course now would be to leave the Committee stage of the Bill until another day so that those Members in a minority may put down Amendments if they wish.

7.12 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene. I have listened most carefully to what has been said by the hon. Gentleman. I must point out that the House has been aware that it was the intention of the Government to proceed today with all the stages of the Bill. I announced that last Thursday and not a word of protest was made. Indeed, not only is it in accordance with precedent on this type of Bill in this Parliament, but I pray in aid the fact that in other Parliaments concerned with similar Bills the same provision has obtained. To my knowledge, a similar Bill has gone through all its stages on the same day in three other Parliaments.
It would be more convenient for everybody and more in accord with the dignity of our proceedings, in view of the subject matter of this Bill, if, after having embarked on it today and having secured the Second Reading, we concluded all the stages of the Bill. That is what I intimated that we would do without any protest being made at the time. I imagine that such objections as there are to the Bill have not all arisen during the weekend. I imagine that they were in the minds of the opponents of the Bill last Thursday. In any case, no protest having been made on Thursday, I hope, for the reasons I have given, that the House will now go into Committee on the Bill.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: Might I remind the Leader of the House that, while no protest was made last Thursday, I raised the question of when we should get the Bill? How could there be protests about the procedure which the Leader of the House suggested when we had not got the Bill in our possession? That is a substantial point. Until we saw the Bill it was


impossible to make up our minds as to the course that we might wish to pursue. For all we knew, the Bill might have been of such a nature as to win the support of everyone who voted for the Amendment tonight.

Mr. Crookshank: If it is any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, I would point out that there are other ways of protesting apart from saying something across the Floor of the House on a Thursday afternoon. I am here for a great deal of the time. Representations can be made through the usual channels. Protests of all sorts are frequently made. None was made on this occasion.

Mr. Rankin: Unfortunately, we have no usual channels. We had to dig our own channel, and there was very little time in which to do that over the weekend. I hope that this point will be carefully considered. It is the right of hon. Members to put down Amendments for consideration during the Committee stage. If we are to go straight into Committee from Second Reading the Government are depriving us of a right which the House should have. On that score I hope that further time, perhaps a further day, will be allotted for the Committee stage.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. John McGovern: I appeal to the Leader of the House to give further consideration to this question. The Government had an overwhelming majority in the Lobby just now, but it does not do to ride roughshod over a minority in this House. There should be some protection for minority opinion. Even if the Government have an overwhelming majority they should recognise that there is among a section of opinion in Scotland deep feeling on this issue. So far, the debate has been mild. Nobody could object to it. I suggest that greater latitude should be given and more consideration shown.
It is true that after the announcement was made last Thursday, representations could have been made through the usual channels; but it was not anticipated that the Bill would be driven right through all its stages this evening. A considerable number of Members did not even get into the debate on Second Reading. Many hon. Members were under the impression that the debate could not be continued

after seven o'clock because of the private business set down for consideration at that time. Though that business has been postponed, the result has been that they have been deprived of the opportunity to express their point of view.
I should have liked to make some comments on the Bill which would not have disturbed the atmosphere in any way. This Bill has gone through with very little consideration for Scotland, and not even the Secretary of State for Scotland has spoken upon it. It is shocking that a Bill of this description should go through in this way and that the voice of the Secretary of State for Scotland should not be heard, because even Conservative circles in Scotland in many organisations have protested against the Bill. I suggest that further consideration should be given to this question and that the Committee stage should be postponed, not for an unreasonable period, but for a short time.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I, too, wish to ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the position. On Thursday, when he said that it was proposed to pass this Bill through its three stages, we did not have the Bill in our possession until six o'clock. I stood outside the Vote Office with Members for Northern Ireland constituencies waiting for a copy of the Bill. We did not have an opportunity on Thursday to register our protest, otherwise we would have done so. Three separate issues were raised in the debate this evening. There was the Scottish issue, the Irish issue and the rather complicated question raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
At the opening of the debate and at the end of the debate the Home Secretary stressed the fact that it was a very important constitutional issue. If it is a very important constitutional issue affecting the whole of the territories mentioned in the White Paper, then I suggest that this Bill ought not to be treated in this casual way and that we should have an opportunity of putting our detailed Amendments on the Paper so that hon. Members on both sides can give them the necessary consideration and attention.

Mr. Manuel: I also wish to appeal to the Leader of the House. I think his approach to this matter is wrong and


that he is regarding it as a party issue. I cannot imagine any Bill that is more worthy of being treated on a free vote basis than is this one, and I hope that we shall have an opportunity, during the Committee stage, to put down such reasoned Amendments as we may think fit so that the impression will not be created in Scotland that the thing is being

rushed through to avoid discussion in the House. That would react very badly against the Scottish Members of the House, and would create a very wrong impression indeed.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 55.

Division No. 113.]
AYES
[7.21 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Fell, A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Finlay, Graeme
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lewis, Arthur


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Follick, M.
Lindsay, Martin


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Fort, R.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Awbery, S. S.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lockwood. Lt.-Gol. J. C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Logan, D. G.


Banks, Col. C.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)


Barlow, Sir John
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Garner-Evans, E. H.
McAdden, S. J.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gibson, C. W.
McCallum, Major D.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Godber, J. B.
McKibbin, A. J.


Benson, G.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gooch, E. G.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Birch, Nigel
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Bishop, F. P.
Gower, H. R.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)


Black, C. W.
Graham, Sir Fergus
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Blyton, W. R.
Grimond, J.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bowden, H. W.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Bowen, E. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Markham, Maj. S. F.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Marples, A. E.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maude, Angus


Braine, B. R.
Hargreaves, A.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mayhew, C. P.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Mellor, Sir John


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mitchison, G. R.


Bullard, D. G.
Hay, John
Moody, A. S.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hayman, F. H.
Morley, R.


Burden, F. F. A.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Campbell, Sir David
Heath, Edward
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H.(Lewisham, S.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mort, D. L.


Champion, A. J.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Moyle, A.


Channon, H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Holt, A. F.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Coldrick, W.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nutting, Anthony


Cole, Norman
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Oakshott, H. D.


Colegate, W. A.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Odey, G. W.


Collick, P. H.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Oldfield, W. H.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hurd, A. R.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Osborne, C.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Crouch, R F.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Pargiter, G. A.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Parker, J.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Davidson, Viscountess
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pearson, A.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Janner, B.
Peart, T. F.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Deedes, W. F.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pitman, I. J.


Deer, G.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Popplewell, E.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Porter, G.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Kaberry, D.
Powell, J. Enoch


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Keenan, W.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Donner, P. W.
Kenyon, C.
Proctor, W. T.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Drewe, C.
King, Dr. H. M.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Kinley, J.
Remnant, Hon. P.




Renton, D. L. M.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Rhodes, H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wallace, H. W.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Storey, S.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Summers, G. S.
Wellwood, W.


Roper, Sir Harold
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
West, D. G.


Russell, R. S.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Teeling, W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Willey, F. T.


Scott, R. Donald
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Shepherd, William
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Thornton, E.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Snadden, W. McN.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Soames, Capt. C.
Tilney, John
Wills, G.


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Turner, H. F. L.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Sparks, J. A.
Turton, R. H.
Wood, Hon. R.


Speir, R. M.
Vane, W. M. F



Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stevens, G. P.
Vosper, D. F.
Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.


Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Wade, D. W.





NOES


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Oswald, T.


Bartley, P.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bence, C. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pryde, D. J.


Bowles, F. G.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rankin, John


Brockway, A. F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Richards, R.


Clunie, J.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Ross, William


Delargy, H. J.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lindgren, G. S.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Fernyhough, E.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Fienburgh, W.
MacColl, J. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McGhee, H. G.
Timmons, J.


Forman, J. C.
McGovern, J.
Usborne, H. C.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McInnes, J.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Yates, V. F.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)



Hale, Leslie
Mann, Mrs. Jean
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, W. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Mr. Manuel and


Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)
Masser, F.
Mr. Emrys Hughes.


Herbison, Miss M.
O'Neill, Michael (Mid Ulster)



Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POWER TO ALTER STYLE AND TITLES OF CROWN.)

7.32 p.m.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, to leave out from "Kingdom," to end of line 1, page 2.
The House having decided to proceed to the Committee stage immediately, it would not be right for me to criticise the decision, but one of the inconveniences of the decision is that only manuscript Amendments can be considered because no Amendments for the Committee stage can be put down until the House has given a Bill a Second Reading.
My Amendment seeks to delete the words:
… and all other the territories for whose foreign relations Her Government in the United Kingdom is responsible…

One of the objects of the Amendment is to ask the Home Secretary to explain a point which was not dealt with on Second Reading. The object of the Bill is to give effect to an agreement which has been made, as stated in the White Paper, between the member Governments of the Commonwealth with each other, and the title which it is proposed that Her Majesty should adopt in future is:
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
In Clause 1 there is reference to "the United Kingdom," not "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," and the Bill purports to deal not only with Her Majesty's title in the United Kingdom but also with Her Majesty's title in other places than the United Kingdom: namely, in certain:
… other territories for whose foreign relations Her Government in the United Kingdom is responsible …


I hope the Home Secretary will be able to tell us, first, to what other territories that relates and, second, whether any consultation has taken place with those territories, because I gather that those territories are not the members of the Commonwealth referred to in the White Paper. I am not disputing that this may be a good thing to do, but we have heard a good deal of criticism as to whether Scotland was or was not consulted in any way before the title was adopted, and some of us were hoping that the Secretary of State for Scotland would have intervened during the Committee stage.
However, I supported the Second Reading and, as regards Scotland, I believe it is right, notwithstanding the Amendment which was moved, that the Bill should be passed. Although I attach importance to the arguments based on historical accuracy which were advanced on Second Reading, I thought the Home Secretary made a good case for adopting one numerical connotation for every reigning Monarch after the Act of Union, thereby bringing Elizabeth II into line, so to speak, with Edward VII, Edward VIII, William IV and other Monarchs since the act of Union.
The Bill relates not merely to the title of Her Majesty in the United Kingdom—that is, in the territory governed by the Act of Union—but also other territories which are as much concerned as we are, and I hope that before we pass the Bill in this form we shall know to what extent the countries which are outside the United Kingdom, but for which, nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government are responsible, were consulted, whether they made any observations, and, if so, what and, generally, whether their approval was given to the title that we are now being asked to adopt.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am very glad to rise at once to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), because he has told the Committee that he has raised it in order to be informed and not for any other purpose. The answer is—it is, first of all, a drafting problem—that we have to use words which will cover not only the Colonies in the usual sense in which we use that term, but also the territories which are not part of the United Kingdom, such as the Channel Islands and

the Isle of Man, which are covered by the words we have used, namely:
… for whose foreign relations Her Government in the United Kingdom is responsible …
That was the highest common factor and, at the same time, the best method of drafting that we could find, and that is the reason it is done in that way.
With regard to consultation, there is again a difficulty of words which I do not think really reflects a difficulty in fact. "Consultation" is usually applied in the House of Commons to discussions between this country and another country or between this country and the Colonies in this context. It is, of course, also applied to discussions with local authorities, associations and the like. When one is seeking to know whether something is appreciated between territories which have some form of self-government and others which are on a different basis, one can say that the usual procedure is that the relevant agency of Government seeks to find out by all the means in its power whether the proposal will be acceptable. That was certainly done. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me when I am being chary about the word "consultation," because that has rather an especial meaning.
I want to assure the hon. Member, however, that, before the style and title were chosen and before these words were accepted, consideration was given to them. It is fair to say that, apart from the question of the numeral, which is a Scottish point with which I have tried to deal, the form of title has not really received much criticism. I do not want to repeat what I have said, but it has always up to now been considered necessary to put some territorial description on these places, and that is the real answer to one of the points that has been raised. Apart from that, I do not think the new form has received much criticism, and, therefore, I think the hon. Gentleman can count that as part of the assurance that the people concerned are satisfied.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sits down. I should like to ask him a question, and I am sorry to trouble him at this stage. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is agreed that the words to which


my hon. Friend has addressed himself are very vague. The words are:
…for use in relation to the United Kingdom and all other the territories for whose foreign relations Her Government in the United Kingdom is responsible…

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: In what sense are they vague?

Mr. Hughes: I am coming to that in a moment. In attempting to reply to a question which was addressed by my hon. Friend, the right hon. and learned Gentleman addressed his mind to the Colonies. But will he explain how these words apply, if they apply at all, to the Protectorates? The Home Secretary will realise that the words in the Clause in question relate to the territories for whose foreign relations the Government in the United Kingdom are responsible. Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are responsible to a greater or lesser extent for the Protectorates, and I should like to know how these words relate to the duties and responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government in relation to them. I say these words are vague because there is not in this Bill, as there are in so many other Bills, an interpretation Clause. There is nothing to indicate what the responsibilities are and to whom they refer.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The answer with regard to the Protectorates is that they are dealt with in the title which is put forward in this Bill. That title is used in relation to the Protectorates.

Mr. James McInnes: Although resentment has been expressed by those vitally interested in this Measure, the Government have decided to proceed with all stages of the Bill. It is now becoming abundantly clear that, even knowing the feeling that is felt by some hon. Members, the Secretary of State for Scotland has no intention, despite the appeals made to him during the Second Reading, to say something on the Measure. It seems to me that the whole issue has been taken entirely out of the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I, for one, resent that very strongly indeed, so much so that I ask my Scottish colleagues to express that resentment by leaving the Chamber with me for the remaining stages of this Bill.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Hale: I am glad, Sir Charles, that you did not accede to the invitation of your fellow Scotsmen and follow the four of them who have just left the Chamber as a protest. It is good to know that there is one Scotsman left in the Committee, although I see you are about to be relieved by your Deputy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has done a considerable service in putting down this manuscript Amendment, because I was under the wrong impression of the meaning of this phrase. I admit it was my fault. Had I read it more carefully, I would not have fallen into the error that I did. I had been trying to deal with the whole of the territories which will be served by the different titles, and it seemed to me at one time that, despite the Statute of Westminster, we were legislating for the Dominions in this matter.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made it clear that the Dominions have nothing to do with it at all, but he has not made it clear what that has to do with it. He mentioned the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and other subject and Colonial Territories, but we have no safeguards as to what the words are intended to apply to. I do not want to go to the vaster topic of the Isle of Man, because in a couple of months it will be necessary to investigate their affairs with some care after the Budget decisions are finished. At the same time we have got to remember that this is a very vague form of words.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) and I on one occasion tried to draft a Human Rights Bill, which was intended to apply to as many of the British Colonies as we could possibly manage, and we came up against this problem of how to define a whole variety of territories held under wholly different powers, having wholly different legislative rights and wholly different constitutions. I do not suggest for a moment it is an easy task to approach. Is it correct that we exercise the foreign policy of the Channel Islands? I suppose that to a certain extent it is correct, but if it is to be applied in that sense, surely we administer the foreign policy of Austria with whom no peace treaty has yet been concluded.

Mr. Hector Hughes: And the Protectorates.

Mr. Hale: Let us deal with one matter at a time. I think recently we exercised the foreign policy of Heligoland, but that has ceased now. The occupation of Heligoland is over, so that island cannot be of any great importance to our foreign policy now. Let us deal with the Channel Islands. They have their own Income Tax laws and any British subject residing there escapes the liability of British Income Tax. and a good many people go there to do it.
What is the position of Sark in this connection? We always understood that the Dame of Sark claimed an hereditary principality and hereditary powers. If that is the only reason for the introduction of these vague and somewhat remarkable words, then I suggest they could be comfortably omitted. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about consultation, but the Isle of Man is an independent country with its own Parliament. There are two houses there, the Tynwald and the House of Keys. It is difficult to know what consultation could take place in that connection, and I should have thought that there were plenty of grounds for the Isle of Man to say that they have the right to make their own representations on this matter.
I am not trying to make a heavy point here, but as far as the Colonial Territories are concerned a serious point arises, one to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given no attention whatsoever. I am thinking of the mandated territories. What happens there? These are territories which have been mandated to us by the old League of Nations or in some cases by the new United Nations Organisation. Have we the power to legislate as to the title for these territories in respect of which it is quite true we exercise the foreign policy but over which it cannot be said in any sense that we have ownership or unfettered rule? We exercise a delegated authority, which has been given to us by the United Nations and which can cease in a year or two's time.
If I mention the somewhat controversial matter of Central African federation, I might be guilty of anticipation, but it might very well be that this Bill will want amending if certain events happen in that

Continent which I hope will never happen. There, again, we shall have an extraordinary state of affairs. We shall have a proposal for a federation in which there will be one self-governing Colony and two Protectorates—Protectorates in the sense that they are under the protection of the Colonial Office. How we can apply one collective title in those circumstances and make consultation, I do not know. In those circumstances, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at these words carefully and seriously.
Who decides what the exercise of foreign policy means? Who can say what limitations or fetters are upon it? I should have thought that the situations in Swaziland and Basutoland were obviously situations of some difficulty. Surrounded as they are by the Union of South Africa, it is difficult to say that we exercise a foreign policy in respect of those two countries. I should have thought it would not have been difficult to find a collective form of words to make it clear to this Committee what we are saying and in respect of what areas it is intended that this title should apply and in respect of what areas it is suggested that it should not apply.
My hon. Friend has moved what seemed to me to be an important Amendment and we have not had any clear assurance about it. I suggest that there is nobody in this Committee who can say what countries, Colonies, Mandated Territories, self-governing Dominions, and so on, are included in this and what are not. There is no interpretation Clause to say what the exercise of foreign policy means or by whom it should be exercised or whether it can be delegated exercise of foreign policy or not. The words are vague. This is an important constitutional document which must inevitably be added to the greatest constitutional documents of history. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make it plain to this Committee and not ask us to sign a blank constitutional cheque which gives authority over vast areas without our knowing what those areas are or where they are.

Mr. Rankin: I should like to press upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) with regard to the Trust Territories.


I could readily understand that the Protectorates and the Dependencies of the Commonwealth could be incorporated into this phrase, but I find difficulty in understanding the application of the phrase to the Trust Territories, for instance, Tanganyika.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt, because I believe he is serious on this point. The words are "in relation to the United Kingdom and all the other territories." This will be the title used in relation to all other territories, and "in relation to" covers every form of connection, as I have already said in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). And it covers quite different forms of relationship, whether it be the territories within our own waters, the Colonies, the Mandated Territories or the Protectorates. I did not want the hon. Gentleman to be in any difficulty about that.

Mr. Rankin: I am grateful that the Home Secretary credits me with treating this matter seriously, because I hope I have been doing that all day. I am grateful for his endorsement, but I do not think he got the point I was seeking to establish. I was saying that I could well understand how the phrase covers our Dependencies and other of our Colonies, but when it comes to the Trust Territories I should like his guidance on the point that I want to put with regard to them and I am taking Tanganyika as an example.
The care of that territory has been vested in us by the United Nations to whom we are responsible for its care. Since that is so, does it follow that the United Nations vest in us responsibility for the foreign relations of Tanganyika? It seems to me that if the United Nations expected Tanganyika to have any relationship in external affairs, then that relationship would follow the pattern of United Nations foreign policy. It would not necessarily follow the relationships in external affairs pursued by this country, because it is a United Nations Trust Territory.
Now, by virtue of this Clause, it seems to me that we are assuming an obligation in regard to Tanganyika that has not been

vested in us by the United Nations Organisation. If I am wrong, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me and I assume that he will then, speaking on behalf of the United Nations Organisation, tell us that when they vest in us what I have always taken to be the internal guardianship of a territory, at the same time they say to us, "You have control over the foreign relations of that territory even though they may occasionally be in conflict with those of the guardian organisation." Am I right or am I wrong? I should welcome the guidance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that point.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman a question to which he gave an answer which I ventured, with respect, to say was not satisfactory. My difficulty arises from the fact that this Bill, unlike many other Bills, has no interpretation Clause and there are many obscure and vague sentences and phrases in it which require interpretation. My hon. Friend drew attention to one such phrase and it is to that phrase that I am addressing my observations. It contains the words "relation" and "relations" used strangely in two different senses and the sense in which either is used is not clear. This is the phrase:
The assent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is hereby given to the adoption by Her Majesty, for use in relation to the United Kingdom and all other the territories for whose foreign relations Her Government in the United Kingdom is responsible.
The two simple questions upon which I am asking for information are as follows: First, what is the meaning to be attributed to the word "relations" in the first instance and in the second instance? Secondly, what are the territories to which this refers? Are they Colonies? Are they Protectorates? Are they condominii? Does it include Western Germany, for instance? After all, Her Majesty's Government are responsible at present for the foreign Policy of Western Germany. Does it include Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia, which have a different status in constitutional matters? Does it include Nyasaland, and does it include the Gold Coast?
8.0 p.m.
I agree with my hon. Friends that this is a very important Bill, which will have relations, to use the word in a different


sense, with the various parts of Her Majesty's Dominions throughout the world. I am sure the Committee will agree that a Bill of this importance, small as it is, but great in Commonwealth importance and important in relation to foreign affairs, should be clear beyond yea or nay. There should be put into it an interpretation Clause, and apart from the interpretation Clause the Home Secretary should clearly define the terms to which attention has been drawn.

Mr. Michael O'Neill: It is intended, apparently, in this Bill to legalise the adoption by proclamation of the new Queen's title. We have seen, as a result of the Commonwealth Conference, that Canada, Australia and New Zealand are only prepared to accept a title bearing the words "the United Kingdom." But apparently it is the intention of the Government, in the title that is to be applied or used for this country, to use the term "Great Britain and Northern Ireland." We should very carefully consider the implications of this variation in the title.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hesitate to interrupt, but the question of the title does not come into the Bill, nor does it arise on this Amendment. I must, with the greatest good will to the hon. Gentleman, suggest that this is not the time when he can raise the matter.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): That is true. It does not come within the terms of the Amendment, and it is not in order to refer to it.

Mr. O'Neill: By what procedure or form can we express our dissatisfaction with the proposal in the accompanying White Paper, which defines the Government's intention?

Hon, Members: On Second or Third Reading.

Mr. Rankin: The Home Secretary said that he was taking me seriously and that he believed I was dealing with——

The Deputy-Chairman: I thought that the hon. Member had finished his speech.

Mr. O'Neill: On a point of order. We have made an attempt to introduce an Amendment at this stage, but we have not been successful. We have heard a protest at the manner in which the Bill

has been rushed through, and I think it is most unfair that we as a minority body are not given the opportunity to express the views of our constituents on this subject.

The Deputy-Chairman: That does not arise on the Amendment. There may be other ways of doing it, but not on the Amendment.

Mr. E. Fletcher: This discussion arises from an intervention made by the Home Secretary asking you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, to rule whether my hon. Friend's observations were strictly relevant to the Amendment which I have moved. I suggest that where we are dealing with a Committee stage immediately after Second Reading, we are obviously in very great difficulty, because Members must apply their minds to manuscript Amendments. It is one of the difficulties in which the Government have put us, and I hope, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that you will grant us an ample measure of indulgence in view of the difficulties with which we are confronted in discussing manuscript Amendments.

The Deputy-Chairman: There may be difficulties, but there is an Amendment before the Committee and the rule of the Committee, of course, is that the Amendment which is before it must be discussed.

Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend, as I apprehended, Mr. Hopkin Morris, was putting to you a preliminary and introductory series of observations about the decisions made by the Dominions and I understood that he was referring to the case of Northern Ireland in this connection. The manuscript Amendment which has been submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) is to leave out those collective words which refer to other territories. In other words. the effect of the Amendment, if carried, would be that we were discussing only the United Kingdom, of which Northern Ireland at the moment is a part, even if my hon. Friend objects to that. Therefore, it would make it quite possible to have a wholly different title for the United Kingdom.
In my submission, my hon. Friend would therefore be perfectly in order in raising the question of Northern Ireland and its effect upon the title in discussing this question. If the Amendment is


carried, it would make a wholly different situation in that connection. That is very different from the point which my hon. Friend is now arguing.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Sure we have already passed the United Kingdom. We are now discussing the Amendment to leave out other territories. I submit that any argument directed towards the United Kingdom, which, as we know, includes Northern Ireland, is wholly out of order.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that that is accurate. The first part of the Clause, which says
The assent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is hereby given….
has been passed. The phrase "United Kingdom" has already been passed.

Mr. Rankin: In view of that, perhaps I may return to the point which I raised with regard to Trust Territories. I gathered that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was thinking about the point that I was raising and I assumed from his attitude that he would give us some guidance on it. It is a material point as to how far Trust Territories are affected——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is repeating an argument which he has already put.

Mr. Rankin: I did not mean to repeat all that I have said. I was only seeking to emphasise the point that I had made and to which I assumed from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude that he would make a reply. I do not want to press him, but if he could promise that he will make a reply on, say, Report stage or Third Reading, I should be quite satisfied if he could give some guidance of that nature. I do not want to rush the Home Secretary. Does he feel that the point is not material?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman wants my view, I am quite sure that these words do not make any difference to the position of the power, and I have already endeavoured three times to explain that. If I cannot make my explanation any clearer the fault is mine, but I give the assurance that in my view it does not make any difference and

that the hon. Member need not consider that the foreign relations of Tanganyika will be altered in any way.

Mr. Rankin: I take it from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply that a Trust Territory falls into exactly the same position so far as foreign relationships are concerned as does a Dependency, a Protectorate or any other form that governs colonial relationships. I take it that that is the real answer.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: I hope that the Home Secretary will agree that I am asking my questions as sincerely as he agreed that the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) asked his. I think that a point of some substance was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) when he referred to the position of condominiums. There is the condominium of the New Hebrides, which I think is Australian-French rather than British-French. What is the position in regard to the Sudan? That seems to be point of real substance on which we should like some information.
I should like to take the right hon. and learned Gentleman further afield to the position of uninhabited territories. We had a lot of discussion lately on the subject of the Antarctic. Does a territory which is uninhabited except by penguins have foreign relations? I take it that it does in the sense that an occupation has taken place on the part of British officials and others.
There are some territories which are completely uninhabited. I remember one in the Canadian Arctic, on which I spent some months. It is called Ellesmere Land and at one time it enjoyed the distinction of being the only territory in the world entirely inhabited by policemen, as it had a mounted police force. Later, that was abandoned and it became uninhabited again. I take it that uninhabited territories can have foreign relations. It would be interesting to hear the reply on that point.
In regard to the Antarctic, this is a matter of real importance because of the claims of the Argentine and Brazil. I think our claims are much longer and more firmly established. We should like to have some information in regard to


condominium and uninhabited territories such as the Antarctic.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. M. O'Neill: We in Northern Ireland, at least more than 40 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland, resent the implication, as suggested by Her Majesty's Government, of "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." Before considering acceptance of this Clause, we should consider the implication. As a result of the Commonwealth Conference we have seen that the Commonwealth countries, practically as a whole, have not accepted a title including the words "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." It is only the Government of this country who insist on embodying that particular form of title.
We should consider the feelings of the Irish people in this respect. This will be viewed with very great resentment and very great pain by the Irish people—not only by the Irish at home, but by the Irish abroad. We should bear in mind that in these Commonwealth countries there are a great many Irish people and not only purely Irish but those of Irish descent. We should also bear in mind that they regard Ireland as their motherland. Possibly in the Commonwealth it may be found that many regard Ireland as the motherland in much the same way as a great many regard England as the motherland.
We know that the partition of Ireland has been a source of great embarrassment to the relations between these countries. It is the last remaining quarrel between the two nations and we know that the Irish people in the Commonwealth, in this country, and in the United States of America have the same feeling in regard to partition as have the people at home.
8.15 p.m.
We wonder why the person of the British Sovereign should be brought into this quarrel and why she should be subjected and exposed to the protests which will inevitably follow from every section of the Irish race while partition lasts. But the matter has even wider application. We must consider Irish

opinion throughout the world. Our position as good loyal citizens of those countries must also be considered and as long as the partition of our country lasts so long will it be a source of embarrassment to the relationship between this country and the countries of their adoption.
The Crown is to be regarded as a factor of cohesion and unity in Commonwealth affairs. It is only right and proper that it should be kept from anything that tends to create disunity. Does it make for harmony and unity between the British and Irish people in the Commonwealth when we have the Dominion countries unanimously accepting one form of title while this country accepts another form, which is repugnant to the vast majority of the Irish people in those countries?
I cannot see why this country has subjected itself to all these embarrassments. I fail to see why it finds it necessary to subject the Crown to such embarrassment. In the Bill it is mentioned that it is desirable to have a common element. Is it the intention of the Government to single out this Bill to produce an uncommon element so far as concerns the unity of the Commonwealth nations? I feel that the answer is obvious. Ulster Unionism has used influence to cloud Britain's better judgment and the better judgment of those who were responsible for framing this Bill.
Is there no limit to the sacrifices that have to be made to this narrow-minded clique in Northern Ireland? They have already made an unnatural gulf between the two peoples. They have succeeded in influencing people in this country and in the Commonwealth countries and have succeeded now in introducing the Crown as a factor of disharmony by identifying it with the great problem of partition.
During the Second Reading debate we had some of the excuses offered by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory). He outlined the case for partition. I would point out how illusory and wrong were some of his statements. He referred to the Treaty of 1921. That Treaty was never clearly accepted by the Irish people. It was an agreement imposed upon them by the threat of civil war and a return to the Black and Tan terror. Moreover, the immediate result of that agreement was a terrible civil war in Ireland——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is in order in saying that Northern Ireland should not be included. He is not in order in traversing the Second Reading speeches.

Mr. O'Neill: My intention was to correct some wrong inferences conveyed to the House during the Second Reading debate——

The Deputy-Chairman: That is out of order. If the hon. Member confines himself to his objection to the inclusion of Northern Ireland, that is in order.

Mr. O'Neill: I am sorry if I am to be denied that opportunity, because I could easily and convincingly point out that the Irish people never at any time accepted the partition of their country. We have repeatedly challenged a plebiscite on that point, and the challenge has never been accepted.
The Irish people are members of a republic and have been since 1798 when the policy was first accepted. It was no idle fancy. It was a sound practical belief in the economic destiny of the country that was proved to the world by the sacrifices, hardships and suffering of the Irish people in their efforts to achieve that form of Government.

Mr. Hale: What about Daniel O'Connell? He grovelled before George III.

Mr. O'Neill: Nevertheless, he represented a republican Ireland.
It has been suggested that Ireland as a republic is anti-monarchist. That is not true. The Irish people are republican in exactly the same way as the United States and France. If the United States and France can be great friends and allies of this country, so can republican Ireland. So, too, can republican Ireland have a great respect for the monarchist institutions of this country.
I ask the Government not to proceed with this proposal embodied in the White Paper. If they do not proceed with it, the door will be left open for a reconciliation with the Irish people. Unity on a fundamental issue between the Commonwealth of Nations would be restored. The person of the Sovereign would be removed from this unfortunate partition quarrel. No longer would there be the embarrassment felt by people in this country in

their relations with the United States. The advantage which the Government stand to gain by pursuing this policy is merely that of placating a small minority.
I have a coincidental interest in this matter. Four hundred years ago another O'Neill, the great Hugh, pleaded at the court of Elizabeth I. He pleaded the same case and with the same arguments. But the enemies of Ireland got to work with all the devilry at their command and Hugh O'Neill went back to Ireland to face a future of centuries of tragic relations between the two countries. Today, I, another O'Neill from Tyrone, not a great O'Neill, but nevertheless an elected representative of those self-same people, plead with the Government of Elizabeth II.
Am I to be sent away like my great predecessor 400 years ago, to face a future of tragic relations between our two countries? Am I to be the victim again of the enemies of Ireland? Or shall I go home with the door left open? The answer rests with this Committee.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. O'Neill). Earlier this afternoon we listened to an historic dissertation from the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory). I do not wish to reply to his arguments because I might be ruled out of order, and also because I have replied to them so often that I am rather tired of it. If he really believes that the Government and people of Ireland agreed to the setting up of the Northern Ireland State, as he said, then he must be the most fantastic phenomenon in existence. If he really believes that, he is certainly the only man in this universe who does.
8.30 p.m.
I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who opened the debate officially for the Opposition, make his quite dignified objection to the inclusion of these controversial words in the Royal title when, as he reminded the House on Second Reading, none other of the countries in the Commonwealth have included them. I should like to ask the Minister whether, during the course of the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, their opinion was asked on whether or not these words should be


included. It is hard to believe that their opinion was not asked; it is hard to believe that all these seven countries came spontaneously and coincidentally to the conclusion that they themselves should not use the words "Northern Ireland" in the designation which is used in their countries. I should like to know whether they expressed any opinion on whether we should use them or not.
I think the Government were  advised to do this, first of all, because the words are so irrelevant and unnecessary. We already have in the title the words "United Kingdom," and there was no reason to designate it more closely than that. Furthermore, it has been so very often said in the House by hon. Members on both sides that it is the desire of all of us that, some day or another, Ireland should be united. What divides many of us are the devices and methods by which Ireland should be united, but I think it is the considered opinion of all of us that the two parts of the country should themselves come to some such decision. That is not my formula, but I think that even Ulster Unionist hon. Members will agree that, if the two sides could agree to a united Ireland, we should then have to have another Bill before the House to change the Royal title, whereas, if we do not use these offending words, there would be no need for further legislation.
Finally—and I think many hon. Members will agree with me—it is very much to be deplored that the name of Her Majesty the Queen is now to be linked officially by statute with a fiercely controversial issue. That is very much to be deplored, particularly when it was so unnecessary to place her name in this invidious position. It was also unnecessary to give offence to so many good Irish men and women who belong to the Commonwealth. The Government were ill advised to do this, and I hope that, even at this late stage, they might find it fitting even yet to remove these two offending words.

Mr. Alan McKibbin: In regard to what the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) said about a united Ireland, we never asked for Partition; it was forced upon us. It has also been stated here this afternoon that Sir Edward Carson and Mr. Bonar Law both

said that they were working for a united Ireland. If they said that—and they may have done, though I do not know—they meant a united Ireland under the Union Jack, not under the tricolour of the Irish Republic, whose people stabbed us in the back in the 1914–18 war and in the rebellion in 1916, and stabbed us in the back even worse in the last war by withholding their ports from Great Britain's use in the worst hours of her distress, which cost us so many British lives, and also by the maintenance in Dublin of German, Italian and Japanese Embassies and Legations and by keeping on their lights to direct German aeroplanes.

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that we shall come to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McKibbin: The late King was styled King of Great Britain and Ireland, and if it had been proposed to give Queen Elizabeth the title of Queen of Great Britain and Ireland I could have understood some objection coming from the Irish Republic, for whom obviously the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Healy) and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. O'Neill) were speaking. I could quite understand that they should then kick up hell on behalf of the Irish Republic. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Well, I withdraw "hell," although it might apply to them.
Whatever reason was given by the Home Secretary, I consider that the reason for the change in the title was to make it absolutely plain to the whole world that we, the people of Northern Ireland, intend to remain part of Great Britain and the British Empire, and that there is nothing whatever that the few nationalists in Northern Ireland—and the two hon. Members whom I have mentioned do not by any means represent all the nationalists in Northern Ireland, because I know many of them who voted Unionist, and the number of those are far more than the hon. Members opposite believe——

The Deputy-Chairman: This is far removed from this Clause. I hope that the hon. Member will come to the Clause.

Mr. McKibbin: I am just giving the reasons for the alterations embodied in the Clause. I was going to wind up by


saying that nothing these people can do and nothing that can be done by their friends in the back streets of Chicago and Detroit can force Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I rise because I have listened, as the whole Committee has listened, with care and attention to what the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. O'Neill) has eloquently said and to the support which he has received with equal eloquence from the hon. Member of Thurrock (Mr. Delargy). I want to make a short explanation and to add a few other words.
The explanation is this. There is no difference in the content, as we all know and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said earlier, of the words "United Kingdom" and the words "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." United Kingdom means the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and therefore that is clear in any form of the title. The point that has arisen is why we should put in those words "of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
I tried to explain in my speech answering the Amendment that I did not know of any case where in the description by a territory of the title of that territory they have omitted the words of the territory. It has never been done in our own country as far as my researches show, and I cannot imagine it being done. I ask both the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster and the hon. Member for Thurrock to consider this especially. They are speaking as great nationalists and lovers of Ireland. Great nationalists and lovers of their country should be the last to deny to the people of this country the right of having the description of their country in the title of their Queen.

Mr. O'Neill: We do not dispute the right of the people here to have their title for Great Britain, at all. We dispute their right to include any part of Ireland, our country.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That goes to the root of the matter, because the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and one cannot get away from that without going on to the other argument which we can-

not go into—whether there should be partition.
However much he disagrees with my views, I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept from me that I was sincerely worried by the suggestion that I was trying to exacerbate the position on the border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. In every speech I have made on this subject for years I have tried not to do that but rather to soothe it down.
I could not help feeling that in the last year we have had many examples of the improvement in relations between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. There was the hydro-electric scheme for the River Erne; the Bill dealing with the Foyle fisheries, which hon. Members opposite started and I inherited and carried through, and there was the Great Northern Railway. There have also been visits of Northern Ireland Ministers to Dublin. All those things seemed to me to show a lessening of the tension, and that is very acceptable to everyone in this House.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to realise that all we have done is to state what is the fact—that this is the United Kingdom. I am specially anxious to make clear our attitude of mind because it was only a short time ago that I was constantly addressing the House on matters connected with the floods. The Irish Republic were among those who gave us help and who recognised our position. We realise the views of the hon. Members who have spoken today. We also realise the strong views held on the other side of the border; but I want hon. Gentlemen to realise that this Bill is not designed to cause an increase in the difficulties. It is the historic method of stating the title and I hope that they will consider it and accept it in that way.

Mr. Hale: I intervene in this debate only because of the speech made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin). I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman was serious on this occasion. I agree with nearly everything he said about this Clause; I do not cavil at anything. But I have not much sympathy with the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. M. O'Neill) in his complaint about this matter on this occasion, because it is not an occasion to make such a complaint.


It was not possible for the Government to consider the Irish situation in isolation in relation to this Bill. There may be much in what the hon. Member says, and it can be said on another occasion. I have a great deal of sympathy with the desire for a united Ireland. That has always been the aspiration of the party I serve. But it is not a good way of showing one's loyalty to the Throne to get up and repeat ancient calumnies upon a great and friendly nation as did the hon. Member for Belfast, East.
It is quite true that there were more volunteers from Southern Ireland than Northern Ireland serving in the British Forces in the last war. In those circumstances, it is a little distressing——

The Deputy-Chairman: I sought to call the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin) to order when he strayed. I hope that the hon. Member will not continue this line of argument.

Mr. Hale: I do not wish to argue the point. I hope I may be permitted to say that the hon. Member was called to order when he was concluding his remarks, but I am being called to order when I am only commencing mine.
All I wish to say is that here is a great and friendly people with whom we are now entering upon years of close and understanding relationships. I appreciate the fact that it would not have been possible for Her Majesty's Government to alter the Royal title on this occasion, but I regret to see the words "Defender of the Faith." I regret that. Her Majesty is the head of a very great Commonwealth of which the overwhelming majority of inhabitants are not Christians, let alone members of the Church of England.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The title "Defender of the Faith" was not bestowed on Henry VIII for anything he did for the Church of England.

Mr. Hale: The title "Defender of the Faith" was not bestowed upon Henry at all. It was taken by him at the time when he quarrelled with the Pope.

Mr. Gordon Walker: That is not accurate. The title was conferred on Henry VIII by the Pope for a treatise against heretical errors.

Mr. Ede: The title was given in 1521 for Henry's book against Luther.

Mr. Hale: I accept that correction.
That is correct, but, at the same time, it was carried on after the split. Indeed, we are carrying it on in a country which still has a State Church, and we sit in a House in which State prayers are said and in which the majority of Members, I suggest, are not members of the particular denomination. I hope that we shall at some time devise a form of words much more acceptable to the varied collection of religious beliefs in this great Commonwealth, in which we want to see more and more unity as time goes on.

Mr. James Hudson: I intervene only to draw the attention of my two hon. Friends from Northern Ireland to the need to face, as I think the Committee has to face, the situation that if ever Ireland is to be united it must be a reconciled Ireland. Because I think the Home Secretary was acting and speaking in a reconciling spirit, I recommend consideration of what he said in his last speech to my two hon. Friends.
I think they are right in insisting upon the difficulties with which partition will always confront us, but despite those difficulties the Home Secretary has made it clear that it is necessary, when talking about the Monarch of the Kingdom, the United Kingdom, at least to say the name "United Kingdom." We could not very well say that name apart from a recitation of the territories concerned. It is a phrase without any political consideration in it at all. To the extent to which the Home Secretary has spoken in that spirit, I hope that what he has said will not be considered in Northern Ireland as an exacerbation of difficulties which, I admit, are profound and serious and which the House will ultimately have to face.
We have to face most of all at this time, as at all times, how we are to contribute to the reconciling of those opposed factions. To the extent that the right thing has been said tonight from the Front Bench opposite, I hope that the matter will now be left in that spirit.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third Time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

8.50 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Bill is designed to amend and extend the law relating to the superannuation of local government employees both in England and in Scotland. At this moment, as hon. Members may know, there are two separate Acts in force, one in each country; but the law is practically identical. The main purpose of this Bill is to provide for improved benefits, and principally for widows' pensions, without placing any additional burden on the superannuation funds or the rates and, consequently, without increasing the existing contributions of the employees.
The House, I think. may allow me just for a moment to survey the background of this Bill. Local government superannuation in this country has grown up gradually, and comparatively recently. Poor Law officers, officers in the mental hospital service, and the officers of a handful of the major local authorities were brought under superannuation schemes from about 1880 onwards, but other local government officers did not become entitled to superannuation until the passing of a Private Member's Bill, in 1922, enabling any local authority in Great Britain to make provision for this purpose. That, naturally, led to a very big growth of superannuation schemes, but they were still far from being universal.
From 1st April, 1939, in England and Wales, and from 16th May of the same year in Scotland, every whole-time permanent officer in local government service received the benefits of superannuation. That was as a result of the passing of the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, and the corresponding Scottish Measure. Those Acts sprang from efforts—extended over some 30 years—of the Association of Local Government Officers to secure superannuation arrangements for local government

employees. The Bills which latterly became the Acts of 1937 received very little criticism, and were passed rapidly through all their various stages, and I hope that that may be a good precedent for the present Bill.
Fourteen years have passed since the Acts of 1937 became law in 1939. After the war the National Association of Local Government Officers raised the question of further improvements with the associations of local authorities, and when the two sides had agreed on the main outlines of the legislation that was required, working parties were set up composed of representatives of the local authority associations and of the employees, along with officials of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Scottish Home Department, and, as a result, the proposals which form the basis of the present Measure were agreed upon.
I may say for the benefit of hon. Gentlemen that the measure of agreement has been very wide indeed, but I will not pretend for an instant that the local authority associations were able to accept all the suggestions which were put forward by the associations representing the employees. I suppose that that would have been too much to have expected. Moreover, neither side is prepared at this stage to abolish the compulsory retiring age of 65, although in fact, as I think I shall be able to show the House a little later, that is not the absolute bar to further employment that it may appear at first sight.
Both sides are very anxious that this Bill should become law at the earliest possible moment, and I am sure that we may leave it to them, as responsible bodies, to work the Act when it does become law in the spirit as well as in the letter, and to have due regard to national as well as sectional interests.
Some hon. Members may well feel that superannuation is a matter on which the local authorities as employers might have been left to make their own arrangements in consultation with the representatives of their employees. I have already referred to the fact that in certain cases local authorities have promoted their own superannuation legislation, and I may add that in so doing they have rendered a very considerable service to the growth of superannuation. There is general


agreement, however, that in this matter a single uniform system is a very great advantage, not only in saving administrative expense but also in facilitating the transfer of employees from the service of one local authority to that of another.
When the Acts of 1937 were passed, authorities who had local Act powers in relation to superannuation were required to modify their local schemes to fit in with the new Statutes, and a similar obligation is necessary at this time—that is, if all employees are to benefit from the improvements made possible by this Bill. I hope that the authorities may feel that the best course is for them to give up their local Acts under which they are working at present, and to come in under the new provisions in their entirety.
There is one major difference, which I am sure hon. Members have noticed, between this Bill and the Act of 1937. Most of the provisions setting out the details of the benefits are to be taken out of the Acts and will be provided by regulations which will require affirmative Resolution. That change follows what is now the normal practice in such matters, and is largely occasioned by the voluminous and extremely complicated but essential subsidiary provisions which are necessary.
The House well knows that once such details are put in an Act of Parliament they can only be altered or amended by an amending Act; but if they are prescribed by Regulations and it is found that some little change may be required, there is the simple process of amending Regulations. These Regulations, in conformity with the usual practice, will naturally be the subject of very detailed consultation with all the various interests.
Hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies may well ask me at this point: Why, since the existing Acts are separate, is there only one Bill now covering the two countries? The reason is simply that the changes which are now being made are exactly the same in principle, and it would therefore seem to be unnecessary to have separate Bills, both to be debated in the House, dealing with exactly the same subject for England and Wales and for Scotland.

Mr. A. Woodburn: When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman comes back to

this side of the House, I hope he will keep that good common sense in mind.

Commander Galbraith: There is another point to which I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention, which is that the history of this Bill also supports the case for making a change in principle in one single Measure. Local government officers, who are represented by one body for the whole of Great Britain, negotiated with the local authority associations in both countries jointly about the possibility of introducing widows' pension schemes, and in these negotiations agreement was reached. It is that agreement to which the present Bill gives effect.
It is obviously in the interests of local government officers in both countries that the new arrangements should be introduced as early as possible and at the same time in each of the two countries. The best way of achieving that is, I think, by laying down the general principles for Great Britain in a single Measure, and that is what the Government have done. This Bill expressly provides that the regulations applying to Scotland are to be separate and to be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I will now deal very briefly with some of the main features in the Bill. First, may I remind the House that under the two Acts of 1937, when an employee retires he may, if he is in good health, allocate part of his pension to provide a pension for his widow. But he is unable to do that if he is not in good health. In that event, or if he dies before retirement, his widow cannot get a pension from the superannuation funds in any circumstances whatever. Under the Bill it is proposed to empower Ministers to make regulations containing very much wider provision for widows. I think that I might state briefly the benefits that are envisaged.
A married employee will be entitled to a reduced benefit on retirement, but, in return, his widow will receive a pension in the event of his death at any time after he has qualified for pension by completing 10 years' service. The amount of the widow's pension will depend on the amount of the pension which the husband was receiving or for which the husband's service and pay had qualified him at the time of his death.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Never more than one-third, of course. There is a ceiling, I gather.

Commander Galbraith: Yes, naturally. That is all worked out on an actuarial basis.
There is another point in connection with widows to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. The widow of an employee who ceases work through permanent incapacity as the result of an injury sustained in the actual discharge of his duty will receive a pension in the event of his death. These provisions for widows are the most important single provision of the new legislation.
Since the passage of the 1937 legislation, which provided that all retirement benefits had to be taken as pensions only, it has become generally agreed that it is advantageous to a retiring employee to be able to take his retirement benefit partly in the form of a pension and partly as a lump sum. Accordingly, the Bill provides that in future a retiring employee may receive his benefit in that form. Bachelors and married men will receive the same rate of pension, but a married man will get a smaller lump sum as the price of providing a pension for his widow.
That, I think, illustrates another of the most important characteristics of the Bill. It would obviously not have been difficult to provide increased benefits by increasing the contributions to be paid both by employer and employee, but, understandably, neither side was willing to make this additional contribution. Therefore, the whole of the benefits to be provided under the Bill have been designed, if I may use a technical phrase, to be actuarially equivalent to those in the 1937 Acts, that is to say, taken all round, the whole amount spent on benefits after the passage of the Bill should not be greater than the amount spent for a comparable number of employees of similar type under the two Acts of 1937. This is a not important feature of this Bill since, of course, many alternative schemes that might, on the surface, appear more attractive have the disadvantage that, in one way or another, they would increase the burden on the superannuation funds.
None of the benefits under the two Acts of 1937, with negligible exceptions, is available until the completion

of 10 years' service. Naturally, in the event of service terminating before that period is reached, employees, for the most part, were able to recover the contributions that they had made.
It is proposed to provide by the Regulations two short-service benefits available where more than five years' service has been completed but less than 10. In the case of retirement from ill-health in that period, the employee will be given a title to a single payment of one year's pay, and in the event of his death within the same period, his legal representatives will be given title to a similar amount.
One of the other major features of the Bill has been introduced on the initiative of the Government. In Section 7 of the 1937 Act it is provided that compulsory retirement shall take place at 65 years of age but further employment is also allowed year by year without any limit, though the extended service does not count for benefit. As I said earlier, that Section is not the bar to the employment of the elderly that it might appear at first sight to be, but the fact that no employee can earn additional pension after the age of 65, naturally, to some extent discourages elderly employees from remaining at work.
In view of the importance which the Government attaches to extending the working life of the average man and woman, I should like to pay my tribute to the fact that the local authorities in England and Wales and Scotland are already employing a very considerable number of persons who are over the age of 65. It is hoped that that number may be very substantially increased, and to that end, where the employing authority considers that good service can still be given, the Bill makes it possible, broadly speaking, for an employee to continue earning pension up to the age of 70. That should afford a valuable inducement to employees to continue at work.
Apart from the major matters of which I have spoken, there are a number of minor alterations. That is natural in complex legislation of this kind. The Acts of 1937 have now been in operation for a period and defects naturally show up, and the Government are, accordingly, taking this opportunity to correct a number of them. None of them is really significant, save to a comparatively small group of


people who are intimately concerned, none of them is believed to be controversial, and they have all been agreed by the associations.
To illustrate what is being done, one amendment is designed to prevent short breaks in service from prejudicing an employee's superannuation position on his again taking up local authority employment. For example, at present a whole-time employee transferring without break of service to part-time employment can continue to contribute, but a very short break, perhaps quite accidental, may put him in the position of an ordinary part-time employee who is not entitled to contribute. All that matters for the purpose which we are considering is whether there is any substantial break, and the Bill proposes to disregard any break of less than 12 months' duration.
Another amendment is designed to avoid interruption in the payment of contributions during leave of absence without pay so that the employee's rights shall not be prejudiced. These absences are often of considerable advantage to the public interest, for it may be that they enable an employee to take an advanced course of study or to be loaned in some public capacity.
The provision for the forfeiture of superannuation rights is limited by another amendment. Forfeiture occurs if an employee commits an offence of a fraudulent nature or misbehaves. We intend to limit the provision of forfeiture to cases where the offence or misbehaviour is related to the performance of the employee's duties, and we also intend to give local authorities some discretion in connection with the imposition of the penalty. That, I believe, is mitigating what is being felt to be a somewhat harsh and indiscriminating provision.
There is one further amendment. It provides for an earlier age of normal retirement for certain of the female staff in children's homes, and that naturally follows the normal provision in regard to female nurses who retire early on account of their arduous duties.
It may be convenient if, at this stage, I refer to the fact that the English Act of 1937 was applied by other statutes to two classes of persons, the justices' clerks and the probation officers. If the statutes were not amended by the Bill,

these officers would have been left under the 1937 legislation as it was originally enacted. We are taking the opportunity, accordingly, to bring them and their superannuation arrangements up to date and into line.
Then there is the question of those local authorities who have their own superannuation Acts. This Bill leaves those local Acts in being unless the authorities wish to adopt the main legislation. The House may remember that the authorities which are concerned here are the County Council of London, the Common Council of the City of London, 19 of the Metropolitan Boroughs, Manchester City Council and the Town Councils of Glasgow and Edinburgh. The Bill requires that these local authorities should submit appropriate schemes to the Minister affording their employees benefits that in certain important respects are at least as good as those which the employees of the 1937 Act authorities will enjoy under the Bill and the Regulations which are to prescribe the benefits.
The main improvements to be incorporated in these schemes are the provision of widows' pensions and the new short-service benefits. The proposal that no local authority should lag behind in this respect will command general support in the House. I may say that that view is shared by the authorities themselves, though some of them feel there may be some considerable difficulties in bringing their schemes up to date. They are inevitably suffering as all pioneers do, but I can assure them that their difficulties will be most carefully considered. I would add this. It will be in their interests as employers, as well as for the benefit of their employees, if they do come into line.
In addition to the authorities that I have mentioned, there are 13 authorities who are subject to the Act of 1937, but have since 1948 by local Act substituted improved benefits, including the provision of widows' pensions. It may be found that the benefits to be prescribed under Clause 1 of this Bill, which are slightly different, should be adopted by these authorities for the sake of uniformity. We have accordingly made provision in the Bill to enable these authorities to amend their local Acts to bring their benefits into line with the


approved benefits prescribed by the Regulations under the Bill.
There is no doubt at all that with a complex Bill of this kind it is only right and proper that there should be very full and careful consideration of its details in order to ensure that the many different circumstances have been satisfactorily dealt with. I am quite sure that the Bill will get that consideration during the Committee stage. In principle, however, I can recommend the Bill to the House with confidence as being in the interests of those in the employment of local authorities and as being in its main respects an agreed Measure.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, quoting from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, its main object is to enable improved benefits to be provided for employees of local authorities without imposing any appreciable extra burden on superannuation funds. I must admit that when I first read this, it occurred to me that it must be too good to be true. It seemed to me highly unlikely that one could improve the benefits which local government officials could get under superannuation funds without in some way increasing the burden. Then I noticed the use of the word "appreciable."
I listened carefully to what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said and I hoped that he would give us an indication of what these changes will cost. I know it is not too easy, but it would have been useful to have some estimate. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will be able to let us have this when he replies to the debate? As the right hon. and gallant Member said, this is only an enabling Bill and we are to get the regulations later. That puts us tonight under a certain disability, for it would have been useful to have before us, at any rate in outline, something on which we could have judged whether this Bill is or is not a good one.
I am told, I do not know with what truth, that the regulations, for some sections at least, will follow the lines of the National Health Service Superannuation Scheme. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman told us that consultations

have taken place, and I assume that the trade unions have been drawn into them and have thus been able to put their views before the Government. Before we reach the Committee stage of this Bill it would be desirable if Members of Parliament could be given as much information as possible as to the figures the working parties have been considering and have, to a large extent, agreed. We realise that until the Bill is passed it is impossible to publish the regulations, but from a number of observations which fell from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I gather that their make-up has been agreed to in some detail.
This is the third Bill of its kind. There seems to be an urge on the part of Governments every 15 years to produce a Measure of this sort. We had the first in 1922 as a Private Members' Bill, but it was the outcome of what was known as the Norman Committee. That Committee laid it down in their report that it would be useful to secure uniformity as far as possible in the provision by local authorities of pensions for their staffs. There is no doubt, certainly so far as officials in the higher reaches are concerned, that it is useful if there is uniformity of pension making it possible for an officer easily to transfer from one local authority to another.
In 1935 we had the Selby-Bigge Committee, which many of us now in the House remember very well. That Committee reaffirmed the principle of compulsory and uniform superannuation for whole-time local government officers. Unfortunately, the Report of that Committee was not unanimous. A minority of about five or seven—I cannot charge my memory with the exact number——

Mr. Arthur Moyle: Seven.

Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend says seven. Seven members of that Committee objected to the principle of compulsion being extended to other classes in the municipal service, and a majority of the Committee were in favour. It was unfortunate that the Government of the day, instead of accepting, as, in my submission, they should have done, the report of the majority, preferred to accept the view of the minority and failed to extend the system of compulsion and uniform superannuation provisions to the whole of local government employees.


When that Bill was going through Committee, the late Sir Kingsley Wood, in reply to an Amendment which sought to extend the 1937 Act to what are called the manual grades, said:
We are taking a big step forward this morning"—
he was referring to the 1937 Bill, now an Act—
in improving the conditions of this great body of men and women, who certainly deserve well of the country…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 22nd June, 1937; c. 892.]
Every one of us will echo what he then said. This is a great and deserving body of men and women who serve local authorities, and through them the nation, with great efficiency.
But when the late Sir Kingsley Wood talked as he then did, in resisting an Amendment to extend the principle to manual workers in local government employ, what did he mean when he said "We are taking a big step forward." All that that Act did was to provide for the insertion of a provision which would permit local authorities to extend their superannuation schemes to the classes I have been mentioning, by a simple majority instead of two-thirds. In my view, and, I am sure, in the view of my hon. Friends behind me, that was certainly not a very big step.
That was 15 years ago, and if we are to make progress in these matters, I for one had hoped that in this Measure we should find that the Government at long last were ready to extend the compulsory principle to the manual classes. It has been given an excellent opportunity to implement the majority view of the Selby-Bigge Committee, and we on this side regret that the opportunity has not been taken.
The manual grades are just as deserving as the administrative, professional of clerical classes. In fact, not only are they equally deserving, but they need more help when they come to retirement—and the Bill deals very largely with retirement pensions. They have had less opportunity than the administrative grades of saving, and therefore, when they reach old age, they need the help of a superannuation fund even more than do those who are higher up in the social scale.
One of the arguments that was used formerly was that the manual grades

would, at any rate, have the benefit of the contributory pensions scheme. That is no longer valid as an argument because all of us now come under the contributory pensions scheme. If what was done in 1937 was good for local government officers, obviously it can be said to be equally good now, not only for them, but for the manual workers.
We on this side of the House realise that many local authorities do include the manual workers in their schemes. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies will have any figures as to the number of authorities who have not yet opened their funds to the so-called lower grades of employees. If, as I think he may he tells us that a very large number of them have now come into line, I would suggest to him that that is an additional reason why we should now make it compulsory. Otherwise, the more reactionary local authorities will contrive to get away with it.
This is a complicated Measure. It is not too easy either to make it interesting to discuss or to follow it. Yet it is a Measure which is of the utmost use to thousands, and we hope that when we have finished with it in Committee it will be of even greater benefit to them. It is not desirable on Second Reading to discuss in great detail the proposals which have been made, particularly as the actual figures are not in the Bill. We have to wait for them until we see that regulations are promulgated. The Bill runs to 25 Clauses and four Schedules. Those of us who have gone through it on this side have quite a number of questions on its various provisions about which we should like more information.
I do not intend at this hour and on Second Reading, to ask many of the questions on which in good time we shall seek information from the Government. I should, however, like briefly to refer to one or two of the major changes the Bill proposes, and to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was also good enough to refer. Obviously some of the things in this Bill—like the curate's egg—are good. In so far as they are good, we welcome them. Some, we think, are open to criticism, and we shall certainly do our share of that if we think it necessary when the Bill reaches Committee stage.
Among the provisions we welcome are the proposals dealing with the injury


allowance, to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, the short service gratuity and the death grant: All are superior to anything contained in the 1937 Act. As far as I know—perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—even these, good although they are, are limited in the number of employees they will help. We should like to know from him, if I am not putting too great burden on him in a Second Reading debate, just how many are to be assisted by these provisions, which are excellent and which we welcome, but which we are very much afraid will not assist all those whom we should like to see assisted.
These are largely the trimmings—excellent trimmings though they are. But this is really a pension scheme, and when one looks at the proposals one looks mainly at the kind of pension which it is proposed to give. I am sorry that so far as we can see the pension which is to be awarded under the Bill when it becomes an Act will be drastically reduced. In the 1937 Act pension was based on sixtieths for contributory services and one-hundred-and-twentieths for non-contributory on the average pay over the last five years of an employee's service. Under this Bill the pension is to be based on eightieths and one-hundred-and-sixtieths, respectively, on the average pay of the last three years.
Surely that means the pension will be lower by a quarter than under the present Act. For every £4 of pension received by a man or woman under the 1937 Act they will receive £3 under the present Measure. I hasten to add that this lower pension is to be compensated for by a lump sum payment, and on this the question arises whether that payment followed by the granting of a lower pension will be automatic.
In his opening speech the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the case of a married man in fairly good health who has put in 10 years' service and who, when he retires, can at present opt to devote one-third of his pension to providing an annuity for his widow. Should his wife die first he is unlucky and loses that amount. But he can make up his mind whether his wife will, in his opinion, out-live him, and he can himself decide what to do. But here I understand quite

definitely there is to be no option as to the surrendering of two-thirds of his lump sum payment.
Is that quite fair? When I look at some of the pension figures provided under this new scheme they do not appear to be very large, considering the increase in the cost of living. A man receiving a pension of £75 under the present legislation will, I understand, receive a pension of £56 5s. and a lump sum payment of the same amount, if he is married. A single man would, of course, get three times the lump sum. If the married man buys an annuity with his lump sum he would not get such a large addition for it. It is true his widow will receive one-third of his pension if he dies, but frankly one-third of £56 5s. is not much. During the Committee stage, therefore, we propose to ask the Government to look at these figures again.
I know the reply will be that the figures are laid down by the Government actuaries. That may be so, and one realises that the Government do not want to add appreciably to the burden on the Superannuation funds. But we are here concerned with people who deserve a proper pension when they reach retiring age. We are worried to notice that on these figures their position would appear to be worse than under the 1937 Act, when the cost of living was less than now and the value of money much greater.
Let us consider the position of a man who would be getting £200 under the present Act. He will receive £150 under this new legislation, with a lump sum payment of a similar amount. Again, of course, his wife will get an annuity or pension if he dies, but, nevertheless, he may not die first, and if he does not he will have sunk £300, without any option on his part, in the expectation that she might outlive him. Normally, of course, women do live longer than men but we ought to look at these figures again.
Then, we also have some doubts about fixing the average at three years instead of five. It is true that, with the administrative and professional grades, that is an excellent thing and helps the officer concerned, but, when we come to the manual grades, quite the reverse obtains. A man reaches the age of 65, or stays on, perhaps until he is 66, 68 or even 70. The difficulty in his case is for him to retain his powers. More often than not,


because such a man is getting old he is put on a job which commands less pay, and the result then will be that his pension will be less because we have reduced the average from five to three years.
I will not say any more tonight, because my hon. Friends behind me much mare versed in these matters than I am, will desire to speak, I will only say that we welcome this Measure, in spite of the criticism which I have offered. There are some good things in it. But it does need very careful consideration in Committee, and we hope that the hon. Gentleman who will reply, and those associated with him, will not, when we come to the Committee stage, follow the example of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the last time we discussed a similar pensions Measure, and simply dig his toes in and refuse to budge at all.
I do not intend to invite my hon. and right hon. Friends tonight to divide against this Bill. We shall accept it in the hope that, in Committee, we shall be able to introduce necessary improvements in what is, we believe, a Measure which should generally be supported.

9.37 p.m.

Miss Irene Ward: It appears from what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) that this Bill is rather like the curate's egg; it has its good parts and its bad parts. I assume that, as the provisions of the Bill have been negotiated and accepted by the professional associations, there must be more to be said on the credit side than on the debit side, and I am therefore glad that the right hon. Gentleman gave it a welcome.
I shall confine myself to one or two points which I have been specifically asked to raise on behalf of the Royal College of Nursing. The Royal College is somewhat perturbed that, in Clause 9, there is no specific mention of State registered nurses or State enrolled assistant nurses. I have had a copy of the correspondence which has passed between the Royal College and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to peruse, and I find it rather puzzling; indeed, all the more puzzling because, from what has been said by my right hon. and

gallant Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who opened the debate, special provision has been made in the Bill for justices' clerks and their staffs and the probation officer services.
I also noted with a certain amount of interest that, when my right hon. and gallant Friend said that this Bill had been negotiated with the associations—and I think he used the plural—he did not give us a list of the associations which had been brought into the consultations. As I have been asked to raise this matter on behalf of the Royal College of Nursing, I can only assume that they were not consulted about the position of State registered nurses who are in the employ of the local authorities.
A deputation from the Royal College of Nursing was received by the Department of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and I find that the correspondence in this case is rather difficult to justify. The Royal College of Nursing asked for the inclusion in Clause 9 of State registered nurses, State enrolled assistant nurses, State registered children's nurses and State registered fever nurses employed in the homes or hostels which are within the scope of the Clause. That seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. Having regard to the magnificent reputation of the nursing service in this country, I should have thought that proper steps would have been taken to safeguard their position in a way which would be satisfactory to their professional organisation before this Bill came before the House.
In a letter from the official concerned to the general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, dated 27th February, 1953, there is this extraordinary passage:
I said that while it would not be possible to go all the way with you the question of extending the benefits of the Clause to qualified nurses employed in the residential homes and hospitals would be considered. This has now been done and we think the position can best be met by designation under Clause 9 (2, c).
Then the official goes on to refer to the classes of nurses whom I have just mentioned.
That is not satisfactory to the Royal College of Nursing. They see no reason at all why members of the nursing profession who, by virtue of their qualifications, which are very high, are employed


in local authority service, should have to rely upon a Minister's designation of them under Clause 9 (2, c). They think that it is a most extraordinary thing that they have not been specifically provided for, and I am requested to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will reconsider these provisions and make what they consider to be adequate provision for this distinguished profession.
I point out with very great regret that that letter was only dated 27th February. Had the information been sent a little earlier to the Royal College of Nursing I would have asked my hon. Friend if he would receive representations from me on this matter. In fact, all that I was able to do was to telephone and give him notice that I would raise this question. I find it extraordinary that the Royal College of Nursing had to make these representations at all. Quite frankly, I cannot understand why, in a matter of this importance, covering a body of people to whom the whole country pays tribute, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have not consulted the professional organisations associated with the nursing profession to find out their views on this very important Bill.
I can only say with the greatest emphasis that I can command that I hope my hon. Friend will reconsider this matter and will see that the desires of the Royal College of Nursing in respect of their professional members are adequately safeguarded in this Bill. I should also like to have a further assurance that in future when a matter relating to the nursing profession is under consideration proper consultations will take place with the appropriate bodies, because I do not like the way in which things have been done in this case.
The other point raised by the Royal College was with regard to their members who are employed in clinics and day nurseries. In that connection, this extraordinary letter says:
In the view of the Minister they do not come within the Clause.
He goes on to say:
As to the former"—
that is, the nurses employed in the clinics—
it seems likely that the nurses employed there may already be covered under the Health Service Regulations.

I should have thought that when my hon. Friend was writing to the nursing profession and the professional organisation he would have taken steps to find out whether they were, in fact, covered under those regulations. Before writing a letter of this kind it is odd that trouble should not have been taken to find out specifically what was the real position of these nurses. I do not feel at all pleased about the matter and I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind.
He goes on to say:
As to the latter"—
the people in the day nurseries—
we, after obtaining the views of the other interested Departments, are not convinced that the duties of nurses employed in day nurseries dealing with healthy children justify inclusion in the Clause.
I am not an expert on this matter and I should not like to pass any observation on that comment except to say that it seems that some of the major provisions of this Bill apply also to the superannuation arrangements of teachers who, in the main, are dealing with healthy children. I am therefore a little surprised at this differentiation between teachers and nurses employed by local authorities. I find the position very unsatisfactory, and again I should like to know who spoke with the Ministry on behalf of the nursing profession and what is meant by "other interested Departments."
Those are the only two points I want to make at this stage, but from what I have said I think my hon. Friend will understand that neither I nor the Royal College think that sufficient trouble has been taken by the Department to safeguard the interests of this very important body of women. I only hope that other sections of local government employees are adequately covered.
I notice that my right hon. and gallant Friend said that the Bill had been agreed with the associations. I only hope that that is so. It is common form to say that agreements have been reached with professional organisations, but I wonder just how far the professional organisations did come to an agreement or how far my right hon. and gallant Friend persuaded them into an agreement. I also have recollections of superannuation Bills, covering people who have rendered this country great service, which are far from satisfactory. I should not be in


order in raising that particular matter tonight, but I hope that what I have said has made its impression on the Front Bench, because I am not very pleased about being told that things have been agreed. It all sounds so pleasant until one goes into it and finds that a compromise has had to be arrived at which is not at all satisfactory.
All I can say is that I hope that the points I have raised tonight will commend themselves to my hon. Friend. I can only assume that he has been so busy creating his magnificent housing record that he has not had the time to pay the attention that he should to the local government side of this business. If he wants to do what he can for the nursing profession—and there may come a day when he will be glad to do so—I can only suggest that he takes note of their wishes and sees that they are adequately safeguarded in the Bill.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: It is customary for hon. Members to declare their interest in connection with matters that come before the House, so perhaps it will be proper for me to declare that I am associated with a trade union—the National Union of Public Employees—the membership of which is directly affected by the provisions of this Bill.
This debate brings back nostalgic memories for me, because I was one of the representatives of the Trades Union Congress who was in discussion with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Sir Kingsley Wood on the Superannuation Bill of 1937. I did not think at that time that I should be in this House tonight taking part in a debate like this. To use an Irishism, I might say that the importance of this Bill is in what is left out of it and not what is in it, because the Regulations are the important part. The Bill is the framework within which the Regulations will be made.
I want to deal with two points. The first is the absence of the compulsory application of the superannuation provisions to what are called in law the "servants" employed by local authorities. The Bill applies compulsorily to officers engaged in administrative and technical and clerical duties and other

duties of that kind, but not to what are loosely called "manual workers." The Joint Under-Secretary has said that the 1937 Act, on the occasion of its Second Reading as a Bill, was subjected to little criticism. That is not quite true, because there was strong criticism from the Opposition Benches by my right hon. Friend the then Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) against the absence of the compulsory application of the superannuation provisions of the 1937 Act to servants.
That Act was based upon the recommendations of a Departmental committee of 1925 which, by a majority, declared in favour of the compulsory application of those superannuation provisions to manual workers in local government offices. When we discussed the matter with the late Sir Kingsley Wood, he was very much impressed by our contention in favour of general compulsion, but he was not prepared at that time to take the plunge.
His main arguments against the compulsory application of the Act were two. One, which has already been referred to, was the benefits that the manual workers derived from the contributory pensions Act, and that no longer exists; and the second was that officers were liable to a greater measure of mobility in transfer from one authority to another, which did not apply to manual workers, and that, therefore, it was desirable in the interests of uniformity that the superannuation Act should be compulsorily applied to officers, so that there would be, as it were, complete fluidity, where desirable, as between one employing authority and another.
There was some truth in the contention at that time, but that contention has lost much of its force because in the Act of 1937 we did establish interchangeability of pension rights, of pensionable service, as between the principal Act, local Acts, such as that of the London County Council and other local authorities, and the asylum and other officers superannuation Act. In short, for the first time the manual worker could carry his pension rights wherever he was employed throughout the whole range of the local government service in consequence of the Act of 1937; and now that we have the National Health Service superannuation scheme of 1950, there is, of course, a


wider area of mobility or interchangeability than was the case before.
Therefore, I ask the Government to reconsider the position in respect of the compulsory application of this Bill by introducing an amendment to the Act of 1937, not merely because of the evidence that I have adduced, but on the grounds of equity. Is there any Member supporting the Government who will get up at a public meeting and justify this distinction between officers and servants? Is there? There is not one of them who would do it, because it cannot be sustained in equity; it cannot be sustained in the interests of administration.
In the days of the late Sir Kingsley Wood—and here I give my own account of what transpired—we failed to get that provision in respect of compulsion; but he did seek to meet us by trying to make the position less inequitable than it was by two things. First, he introduced in the Regulations a provision that a council, by a simple majority of one, could bring their manual workers within superannuation, provided that a ballot had been taken of the men and women concerned declaring in favour of its acceptance
The other provision that he brought in was that a local authority should be advised to bring within a superannuation scheme those men and women who had been employed continuously for two years. He also declared that the main object of the 1937 Act was to bring pension schemes within a general uniformity. He wanted pension rights to be available throughout the whole of the local government service without any doubt.
In February of last year my organisation, the National Union of Public Employees, conducted a survey to find to what extent borough councils were failing to bring manual employees within the provisions of the 1937 Act. We circulated 240 borough councils, from whom we received returns on which is based the following information.
Approximately 20 per cent. had not brought their servants within any superannuation scheme at all. Over the remaining authorities, it was found that the terms of the statutory resolu-

tions passed were so varied as to bring in widely differing proportions of manual workers. The proportions ranged from 2 per cent. to 40 per cent. In other cases we found that all the manual workers eligible had been brought in. We also found that the statutory resolutions varied widely as to the age limits. That evidence shows, I think, the absence of uniformity, which was one of the main objects of the 1937 Act.
Let me give two instances to show the anomaly which has arisen as a result of the non-compulsory application of this Act. I am advised that the Dover Borough Council has not filled one designated post in its superannuation scheme from the manual staff for the last 10 years. Folkestone, on the other hand, has brought into its scheme all its manual employees eligible. That variation is not good for local government; it is not tidy administration, and I ask the Government to consider this matter once again. They will carry local authorities with them, and also officers throughout the service, who do not like this unhappy distinction which has gone on for far too long.
I ask the Government to do the right thing for manual workers in deciding the basis of determining the average remuneration. I want the average remuneration determined on the basis of the average earnings of the manual worker as a whole—say, from 21 to 55 years of age. In the 1937 Act, as in the 1922 Act, five years preceding the end of employment was taken as the basis upon which pensions should be determined; that is to say. to ascertain the average remuneration.
We did not get the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Kingsley Wood, to meet our point; but he did bring in two amendments. He provided that in those cases where wages were suspended or reduced as the result of sickness during the last five years preceding retirement, such periods would be ignored in the ascertainment, and in cases where manual workers were transferred to light employment, such as tree pruning, for example, which carried with it a lesser rate of pay, the employee had the right to opt to continue to pay his former contributions, so that his pension would not be prejudiced by this reduction in pay at the end of his career.


I am advised that in the Regulations that period is now to be reduced to three years prior to the retirement of the employee. I think that that is a gross injustice to the manual worker who, at the end of his days, is less likely to sustain physically his normal occupation, and I think that that provision, if I am advised rightly, will be taken, as it were, from the National Health superannuation regulations and incorporated in this Bill. That will mean that the manual worker will be more unjustly dealt with than has been the case even under the Act of 1937.
These are two points which I wanted to advance for the consideration of the Government, and I earnestly hope that both will be looked at, and that more just provisions will be introduced that will knock out, as it were, the injustices that arise from the application of both the proposals which I have indicated and dealt with tonight.

10.8 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson: The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) speaks from a breadth of experience on these matters which I cannot claim, but my impression has always been that there was a considerable divergence of opinion among manual employees of local authorities on this question whether they ought compulsorily to be brought within superannuation.
I would have said, before the hon. Member gave his figures, that the majority of local authorities had brought in their manual staffs. Of course, there is a great variation in the conditions of their work. Many of the manual staffs are only in the service of the local authorities for a comparatively short time, and, unlike the administrative staff, when they change their employment they do not necessarily go into the employment of other local authorities.

Mr. Moyle: Speaking from over 20 years' experience in dealing with this as well as other local government matters, I have known of no case in which manual workers turned down any pension scheme based either on the Act of 1922 or the Act of 1937. May I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who, I know, speaks with authority on behalf of one of the organisations concerned, that I am perfectly prepared to test that point of view

by hinging to the proposal I made of a compulsory application of the scheme a ballot being taken among the men concerned.

Sir G. Hutchinson: I am by no means contradicting or seeking to contradict what the hon. Gentleman says. I recognise that he speaks with great knowledge and experience of these matters. I was only drawing attention to the fact that there are other considerations which, I think, have to be taken into account before the Government take the course which has been urged upon them and make the inclusion of manual staffs compulsory on all local authorities. It is certainly a matter which ought to be investigated. It might be that the local authorities themselves would welcome the compulsory inclusion of their manual staffs. I am only drawing attention to the fact that there are a number of matters affecting this rather complicated subject to which the House ought to give consideration before the Parliamentary Secretary replies.
As my right hon. and gallant Friend said, the Bill is the result of prolonged negotiations which have eventually ended in agreement. I believe it is about six or seven years since the negotiations began. The most important change that the Bill introduces into the local authority superannuation schemes is the provision for the payment of pensions to widows and other dependants of local government officers. That is a change for which the local government service has waited patiently for a very long time. Local government officers have witnessed other branches of the public service enjoying that very great advantage. The Civil Service has it, local authority employees who were transferred to the National Health Service enjoy it, I understand that the nationalised electricity authority and the nationalised gas authority have both introduced it, and now, last on the list, come the local government officers.
It is right to say that the scheme will not involve any increased contributions from local authorities or members of their staffs. When he introduced the Bill, my right hon. and gallant Friend said that it would not entail any appreciable contribution. He was then invited to estimate what the increase, if there was to


be one, would be. No doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with that matter. I should have thought it was almost impossible to estimate what increased charge, if there is to be one, is likely to fall on public funds. It is clear that the Bill will not involve any increase in contribution. I suppose the only way in which some increase in the charge on public funds could be brought about would be by some increased charge on the superannuation fund which would be reflected in the periodical valuation in the sum which the local authority had to bring in in order to make the superannuation fund actuarially solvent. I see no other way in which an additional charge could be laid upon public funds.
One has to offset that against the fact that it will be possible under the Bill for local government officers to continue in pensionable service until 70. Whether there will be any charge on public funds in the way that I have mentioned or not will depend on the number of local government officers who are induced to continue in the service until they reach 70. The more officers who do that, the more the superannuation fund will be actuarially relieved. The result of the Bill may, in individual cases, be that the charge on public funds will be reduced and not increased. The Parliamentary Secretary is going to make an estimate about this, but it will surprise me if he is able to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) drew attention to the fact that the benefits under this Bill will be reduced. That is perfectly true, and it is of course the inevitable result that both sides in these negotiations were not willing to pay the increased contributions. Accordingly, within that very severe limitation the additional benefits which this Bill is designed to give have had to be provided. Indeed, I think it reflects some credit upon the negotiators that they appear to have produced a result which is satisfactory to both parties to the negotiations.
Before I conclude, I should like to make a further observation. The officers under this Bill will get something for which they have waited for many years—the assurance that some provision will be made for the widow after the officer's death and retirement. That is not only

an advantage to the officer; it is a very substantial advantage to the local authorities. Like many hon. Members in this House, I have had some little experience of service with local authorities, and I know that there is nothing more embarrassing in a case where an individual, who has served a local authority well for many years, dies perhaps in the service of the authority and it is known that no provision or very inadequate provision has been made for his widow.
Local authorities will welcome this additional provision. In one or two cases it may be necessary to make some payment for it, but I think they will be very glad to do so. They will be glad to be relieved of the embarrassment which arises in this case where a servant dies in the service of the authority and the authority quite rightly feels that an obligation rests upon it to make some contribution towards the widow which the official has not been able to make himself.
In conclusion, may I say that the Government are to be congratulated upon this Bill. Local government officers will be grateful that at a time when the Government are not embarking upon legislation which they can avoid owing to the difficulties in this House, they have found time in the present Session for this Bill which means a very great deal to the local government officials. We all feel grateful to the Government for being able to include this Bill in the programme of legislation in this Session.

10.19 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I am glad that this Bill was introduced by one of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland. It seems that for once our Scottish Ministers have insisted on playing some part in a Bill that covers the United Kingdom. There are one or two points I should have liked to put to the Joint Under-Secretary, but he has left the House, though he may be back before I have finished. One thing has struck me considerably about this Bill. We do not have any figures and there is a great deal that we are asked to take on trust. In other words, it is one of the finest examples of delegated legislation, the sort of thing that time and time again we were criticised for when we formed the Government.


The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Miss Ward) made a strong plea for certain representations that had been made by the Royal College of Nurses. In part of that plea I want to back her. I feel that when important legislation like this is brought before the House, and when negotiations have been going on for a long time, an important body like the Royal College of Nurses ought to have been asked their opinions long before they tried themselves to put forward those opinions.
There is one point on which I disagree with the hon. Lady and with the Royal College of Nurses, who have asked that the provisions of Clause 9 should apply to nurses in day nurseries. That would lead to great difficulties. The provisions of Clause 9 are for women who are doing difficult and exacting work; women in homes and in hostels, sometimes, though not always, looking after subnormal children and on call 24 hours a day. They are in a very different position from the nurses in day nurseries where there is both an educational staff and a nursing staff. The educational staff are treated as teachers for retirement purposes. They have just as heavy a job as the nurses, and it would create anomalies if the nurses in day nurseries were treated differently from the teachers there.
I find that Clause 9 applies only to what are termed certain female contributory employees, in other words, to women. We are to give women certain advantages under the Clause, and I welcome that because they are being given to women who have a most difficult and tiring job to do. But in those homes and hostels there are also men employed. I believe in equality of the sexes. If we are to give advantages to women employed in this work, I ask the Minister why only to women? Why not to men?
The same reasons must be applicable to men in this work as are applicable to women. We do it first because of the difficult job they have to do, but also because of the children or young people under their control, and because of the bad effect it might have on them if women were to continue to work when they were no longer able to do so. Since those conditions apply in the same way to men, I ask the Minister to look at this Clause again to see whether it might be made applicable to them also.
I return now to Clause 3, which deals with the amendment of local government Acts. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland mentioned certain local authorities that have their own schemes. As far as I could follow him, he mentioned Edinburgh and Glasgow in Scotland. In page 5, line 33, we are told:
but the authority may"—
that is, the local authority—
and if so required by the Minister…shall, make a scheme for the purpose of adapting, modifying or repealing the local Act so far as appears…
In certain instances, that may be a good thing. The local authority Act may not make such good provision as is made by the Bill, but in some cases the existing Act will have provisions that may be better than those in the Bill. Do the words which I have quoted mean that the Secretary of State for Scotland, or the Minister of Housing and Local Government in England, is going to require of local authorities—the word used is "shall," which is mandatory—that whether or not their scheme is better than that which is being introduced, they make their scheme conform to it? If so, there will be a great deal of heartburning amongst local authority employees.
Quite a number of Members have spoken about the provision for widows. I am very glad that at last, in the Bill, we are getting down to providing pensions for the widows of local government employees. I know that this pension, so far as I can find out from the Bill, is to be provided in the main at the expense of the pension of the husband. I hope that when we reach the Committee stage we will be able to examine more carefully the provisions for the widows and to find out whether there is some method by which the provision of pension for the widow will not militate so greatly against the pension that will be enjoyed by the husband and wife on retirement.
There is one point that I should like to have made to the Joint Under-Secretary. I do not know what obtains in England and Wales, but I know what obtains in Scotland. The Bill is making provision for the widows of local government employees. In Scotland, almost 100 per cent. of our teachers are local government employees. The position in England may be different. The Bill, I understand. does not cover teachers, and yet the widows of teachers are in exactly the


same position as the widows of the other local government employees. I should have hoped that the Joint Under-Secretary would have been able to clear up this point, but it is one which, I hope, will be raised in the Committee stage, particularly when it is remembered that in Scotland almost 100 per cent. of our teachers are the employees of local authorities and that we have been asking for a long time that their widows ought to have some pension scheme.
I welcome very much the provision in Clause 5 whereby pension will still be able to be earned, not merely until the age of 65, but until 70 years of age. In other words, there is an inducement to these men to carry on with their work. This follows what we in the last Government did for teachers in Scotland. Again, I do not know about England and Wales. When we were trying to retain more teachers after the age of 65, one of the ways we tried to do it was by allowing their work after the age of 65 to count for pension purposes. I welcome that provision very much indeed.
My last point is one which has been made by my hon. Friends. In the main, this Bill will cover the administrative class, and not the manual class of workers. It was the case previously when superannuation was introduced that the manual workers had their pension on retirement, very small though it was. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) showed quite clearly that that argument no longer obtains. Every person, even Members of Parliament, will now have an ordinary retirement pension. Those of us who have no superannuation will be very glad indeed of that pension. Not merely those who are already covered by local arrangements for superannuation but all manual workers ought to be covered by this Bill, and I add to the pleas of my hon. Friends to that effect. I welcome this Bill. It brings good provisions to many people, and we hope that by the end of the Committee stage it will bring even better provisions to even more people.

10.31 p.m.

Sir Robert Grimston: I rise to draw attention to one point which has not been mentioned so far in this debate. I think that it is broadly agreed

that this Bill has the support and approval of the local authority associations, but there is one matter concerning one of the smaller associations, namely, the Urban District Councils' Association, to which I should like to draw attention on their behalf.
Under the 1937 Act, the Minister has power to close down a local fund and to transfer the employees to another fund if there are fewer than 100 in the fund. Under Clause 3 (3) of this Bill it is proposed to raise that figure from 100 to 200, and that will bring in another 100 funds which may be liable to be closed down. I do not wish to develop that point at this late hour, and in many ways perhaps it would be better discussed in Committee. But there are two matters. One is the question of prestige. We should remember at this time that we ought to do everything we can to maintain the prestige of local government. The other point is that in many cases a fund which is in the hands of a local authority can perhaps treat cases with greater sympathy, knowledge and understanding than if those cases were transferred to a larger fund.
I very much hope that in Committee the Minister will give his attention to what I think is the desire of the smaller local authority associations, namely, that the figure of 100 should not be raised and that the proposed figure of 200 should be cut out of the Bill.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: The Explanatory Memorandum states:
The main object of this Bill is to enable improved benefits to be provided for employees of local authorities…without imposing any appreciable extra burden on superannuation funds.
But one can hardly see how one can provide great extra benefits without increasing costs.
We all welcome these aims, though I do not think that they go far enough. I ought to declare my interest in this debate, because I am by trade a local government officer. This Bill amends the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937. Section 8 of that Act lays down 40 years' service and provides that no pension is payable before the age of 60, except a breakdown pension after 10 years' service. A youngster enters the


local government service at the age of 16 and will put in 44 years' service before becoming eligible for any pension. Section 10 of the 1937 Act lays down that an officer who voluntarily resigns cannot get interest on the contributions paid, although in some circumstances compound interest is paid. Yet local authority contributions are sometimes referred to as deferred salary. I think that that provision is rather mean. I hope that it will be possible for an Amendment to be accepted during the Committee stage at least to provide for interest to be paid on contributions when a member has voluntarily resigned.
Section 12 of the 1937 Act prohibits the reckoning of service for which superannuation contributions have been returned, so that an officer who leaves the service and does not re-enter it within 12 months forfeits the service he has already put in. Section 13 of the 1937 Act lays down that an officer may, in certain circumstances, return to the service and retain benefits of previous qualifying service but not if his break has exceeded 12 months.
Clause 2(3) of this Bill enables certain non-contributory service to be reckoned as contributory in nature if he complies with stated conditions, and Clause 8 reenacts the 12 months' limitation for the resumption of superannuation rights, and so does Clause 10(3). Certain gratuities payable under Clause 14 are denied to an officer who voluntarily resigns, irrespective of length of service.
A school teacher can qualify with 30 years' service, and there is no disability arising from a break in service. A local government officer has to serve for 40 years before receiving pension, and civil servants and policemen have the same rights as teachers, and in some cases there is allowance for lengthy breaks, although the pension is reduced. The local government officer is treated less generously. Is he inferior to his colleagues in the other of the public services? We have been told tonight that workers in local government are a great and deserving body of men and women. Does anyone, at the same time, contend that there is any logical reason for differentiation against the local government officer? A pensioner of any of the other services can serve as a local government officer, and, in addition, qualify for a second pension—something

which is denied the local government officer who has had a break of more than 12 months.
I have been a member of the National Association of Local Government Officers for a long time; since 1918, in fact, but I think that that organisation, and the trades unions, seem to have failed to look after the interests of officials such as I have mentioned. One has only to read the report of a school speech day to find reference very often to the claim by headmasters, or some other person, that youngsters of today are less bold than their predecessors; that they are always seeking something safe. Yet, Parliament is denying to those youngsters who decide to enter the local government service an opportunity to branch out into some other sphere and then perhaps come back again to local government employment. This is an anomaly of which the House may not be aware.
The local government officer, by training and experience, is well qualified to branch out into some other sphere of activity, and he ought to be allowed to do so and come back without forfeiting his contributions. I speak with some feeling on the subject, because I have been in that position. I had 36 years of qualifying service but, on coming here, I had to resign my post. I eventually got back my contributions without interest, although the superannuation was supposed to have been a kind of deferred salary. What I ask can obviously be of little benefit to me, but I request the Government to take that matter into account when the Committee stage of this Bill is reached.
There will never be a great number of officers who want to do this, but we ought to bear in mind that after a man or woman has had 25 or 30 years of any service there may be a sense of frustration, and it would be to the benefit of the individual and to the community as a whole if he or she were permitted to branch out into some other sphere of activity where a better service could be rendered.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: In a very few sentences I want to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to one point which, I hope, is of sufficient general interest and application to justify raising it now instead of leaving it until the Committee stage is reached.


The legislation which deals with local government superannuation necessarily goes into the most extraordinary detail in determining who shall be paid, what they shall be paid, and in respect of what they shall be paid. This being so, it is particularly incumbent upon the Minister and Parliament to avoid ambiguities of any kind. Bearing that consideration in mind, I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary—who is so unfailingly helpful on these points—to the effect of Clause 14 of the Bill which, in subsection (4), repeals the greater part of Section 11 of the 1937 Act but reenacts subsection (2) of that Section.
When one looks at Section 11(2) of the 1937 Act, one finds that it deals with the powers of a local authority to grant a gratuity to an employee who ceases to be employed because he becomes incapacitated as a result of an accident incurred in the course of his employment, and in determining what amount shall be payable to him the local authority must have regard to several matters.
One is whether he is receiving any statutory right of compensation. That is the phrase used in the 1937 Act, and it was meant to apply to workmen's compensation. But that phrase is quite inappropriate to refer to benefits being paid under the National Assistance Act and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. It is very undesirable that expressions such as "the authority shall have regard to all the circumstances including any statutory right of compensation" should creep into this new Bill by its being re-enacted under this Clause, when such phrases are appropriate only to workmen's compensation, long since deceased.
Under the existing law, local authorities which desire to pay a gratuity to a servant who has suffered an accident are in a difficulty in deciding whether, in setting the amount of gratuity, they should have regard to the payment of benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act. They are in doubt whether that is statutory compensation within the meaning of the 1937 Act. It is a pity that these doubts should be perpetuated through the matter to which I have referred being incorporated in a new Bill. This may be a Committee point, but it may also be symptomatic of failure, in this Measure, to keep up with the times, and failure

to make all the alterations in the law for which the production of a new Bill gives opportunity.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: There has been some discussion about who were the appropriate bodies to be consulted, and a suggestion that one particular body ought to have been consulted. I thought that the bodies to be consulted in matters of this kind were the contributing parties. They happen to be the local authorities, through their associations, and the employees, through their trade unions. If we are going to say that all sorts of professional bodies are entitled to come into negotiations of this kind, t is going to lead not only the Minister, but everyone else, into considerable difficulties. I thought that all bodies had been consulted, and that this was a generally agreed Measure as a result of that.
We have heard tonight a demand, with which I have some sympathy, for increasing some of the benefits. I want to look back for a moment to the original conception of superannuation schemes for local authorities. This was that the employer and employee contributed equally to a fund to provide certain benefits. I thought that that was still the principle. If there is to be a major change in the scale of benefits, the burden must be equally borne. That is inherent if the same principle is to be applied.
Most local authorities are carrying a heavy burden in deficiency payments as a result of actuarial devaluation. I believe that the deficiency payment which my local authority has to make is equal to almost half the total amount subscribed by the employees. This is important, because this is being contributed out of the ratepayers' pockets. While they would wish their employees to be well treated, there must be regard to the burden put upon one side of the contributors to a scheme for the benefit of the other side. The matter must be kept in balance.
The County Councils' Association considers that this Bill might well carry a slight additional provision. Present employees are required to contribute to superannuation schemes at the rate of 6 per cent. Previous employees who have been employed a certain time have to continue to contribute at 5 per cent. There is no reason why there should be


a distinction between one employee and another such as this. One of the causes of the deficiency contributions, so that employees now entering the service have to contribute 6 per cent., is the considerable increase in the volume and the amount of salaries paid to local government officers in the last few years. They are paid superannuation on the average of their salaries in the last three or five years' employment. I know of certain officers whose salaries have been increased by £1,000 a year, and they will continue to contribute at the rate of 5 per cent. Officers now coming in have to contribute at 6 per cent. on their salaries, which are relatively lower.
I see no logical reason, nor do the County Councils' Association, why contributions should not be an all-round 6 per cent. If that requires legislation, I would ask the Government to consider it. I do not think the employees would object. On the grounds of equity, it would be preferable to make the rate an all-round 6 per cent., or, alternatively, 5 per cent.
There is one other point to which I should like to refer. In Clause 20 there is a date fixed of 30th September, 1950. I do not know what particular merit there is in that in connection with this Bill. I do not know whether that date is applicable to classes besides those mentioned in the Clause, but there does not appear to be any merit in it, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman to explain whether he really thinks it necessary.
Speaking generally, this Bill has been welcomed by the County Councils' Association. It will do a certain amount of cleaning and tidying up, inasmuch as it brings local Acts into conformity with the General Acts; and that, I think, will be a good thing because it is desirable that officers of local authorities should move reasonably freely between one local authority and another, and, of course, it is desirable that the benefits they receive should be uniform. I hope the Bill will have a swift passage. The matter has been hanging about for quite a long time now, and I hope the Bill will be passed reasonably quickly, and that the Regulations will be made quickly thereafter, because they are the important things, and when they appear we shall have the opportunity of judging their merits.

10.53 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): This has been a very interesting and valuable debate on what is a non-controversial and generally acceptable Measure. I am glad to be able to say that the local authorities' associations have been agreed upon the measures the Government propose, and it is rather unique—certainly, from my point of view as a junior Minister, it is a very agreeable situation—to know that the local authorities' associations are in agreement with a Government Measure. They are anxious to see it passed as quickly as possible.
I think this has been an example of the House of Commons at its best, debating a Measure which involves necessarily a great deal of human interest. It has been very easy to suggest improvements, but some of those suggested would mean increased liabilities for the funds. They involve increases in the employees' contributions, or increased payments by the local authorities, or, perhaps, both. None of these consequences will be acceptable to the parties concerned, and that, frankly, is the short answer to some of the suggestions made.
The Pensions (Increase) Act, 1952, recently increased the burden local authorities have to bear. It provided increases in the pensions of certain local government employees to meet the rise in the cost of living, and these increases fall on the rates. The main point I should like to make is that the benefits in the Bill have been agreed on the national scale, between representatives of employers and employees, as the best arrangement of benefits they can devise at the moment.
During the Second Reading debate on this necessarily intricate, complicated, and complex Bill many matters have been raised which would possibly be more suited to the Committee stage. On the other hand, many hon. Members who have taken part in this debate will probably not be present during the Committee stage, in which case we shall not have the benefit of their advice. However, in Committee we shall discuss these points in greater detail.
I must repeat what my right hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said, that these


benefits are, in general, actuarially equivalent to the benefits of the Act of 1937. It is not merely that the Government Actuary's Department has advised these benefits, but that the actuaries advising the associations of local authorities and the National Association of Local Government Officers have independently advised their respective bodies accordingly.
The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) opened this debate for the Opposition with great knowledge, with the infinite moderation I always associate with him, and the agreeable kindliness we have always had from him when he was either in the Government or in opposition. He asked whom we had consulted. As the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) said, we have consulted everybody who was concerned financially. It is very difficult for the Government to consult people who are not concerned financially. If the Government extended their consultations to all sorts of bodies, they might go on consulting for an infinitely long time, which would make it difficult to reach any conclusion. N.A.L.G.O. has been consulted and they, in turn, have consulted, although they do not represent them, the Local Government Advisory Committee of the T.U.C.
I would not like to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley in his historical survey, because he urged the desirability of the transfer of pensions from one class to another and his knowledge of history is far greater than mine.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The hon. Gentleman is too modest.

Mr. Marples: I do not accept that from the right hon. Gentleman. He has been in this House a long time and has been saturated in this sort of financial transaction. He asked one point about manual workers and another about the cost of the Bill, while he referred to the words, "No appreciable increase." No figure can be given of the cost. The words, "No appreciable increase," were used because it is impossible to calculate precisely the effect of the Bill.
The hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson) was correct in his prophecy that the Parlia-

mentary Secretary would not be able to give an accurate figure in reply to this question. As far as can be foreseen, the improvements will roughly balance financially. The right hon. Gentleman also criticised the Bill, but welcomed certain proposals on injury and death allowances. He said that these would be limited to a number of cases and he asked how many. We do not know the numbers who would be affected. The death grant would be three-eightieths of the remuneration for every year of contribution, and entitlement would be after five years' contribution. As far as injury is concerned, there is no qualifying period. It is limited to two-thirds of the average remuneration. The right hon. Gentleman will realise the infinite and incredible difficulties involved in making an accurate assessment to answer his question. The Government are grateful for the support of the right hon. Gentleman, who presented his case reasonably, and I hope that he will put down some of his points in the form of Amendments for the Committee stage so that the Government can go into their effect in greater detail, and we can then discuss them at greater length.
Then we had a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Miss Ward)—who, I am glad to say, is not at present in her place; she is indeed a formidable and tenacious opponent on anything connected with equal pay for equal work. I would agree—if I may say so hurriedly before my hon. Friend reenters the Chamber—with the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire. North (Miss Herbison), who said that it would be impossible to consult everyone. If my hon. Friend would like to make her representations on what the nurses' associations really consider should be done the Government would be prepared to consider them.

Miss Herbison: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said. On that part of it I backed up the hon. Lady. I disagreed with her on certain points, but not on the representations.

Mr. Marples: That just goes to confirm my oft-felt suspicion that the opposite sex can be extremely fickle on certain occasions.
On the question of the Royal College of Nurses, one can go on for ever extend-


ing the scope of this Bill. Section 16 of the principal Act provides that the age of compulsory retirement, pensionable age, shall be 60 years instead of 65 years for female nurses, midwives and health visitors. Now this provision was made on account of the arduous nature of these people's duties, and it applied only to the female nurses who were actually engaged in nursing. For example, it would apply to female nurses but not to the matron in a boy's school, who is not actually a female nurse in the school; she spends her time mainly looking after healthy boys instead of invalids, and obviously that is not as arduous as looking after the sick.

Miss Ward: I wonder.

Mr. Marples: Obviously my hon. Friend has returned.
Under Clause 9 the same provisions were extended to certain of the female staff of children's homes on the ground that their duties also are arduous, and for this purpose they should be regarded as being in the same position as nurses. After that was agreed, further representations were received from the Royal College of Nurses that female nurses employed by children's homes should have the same provisions even though they were not primarily for sick nursing, and that provision should be extended also to the staffs of children's day nurseries, and possibly to certain nurses in schools.
It is extremely difficult to know where to draw the line regarding nursing, and I ask my hon. Friend, who has great knowledge of these nursing matters, to let us have the benefit of her advice, perhaps in Committee. If she would put down an Amendment it could be considered in the usual way. She said that perhaps I had no knowledge of nurses. All I can say is that every time I have been in hospital undergoing an operation I have been terrified of those rather trim, neat figures who have exercised over me a discipline which has never been exercised by anyone outside a hospital.
The main point of the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) was the same as that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley—why were not the manual workers included in this scheme? There are three principal reasons. Firstly, not all manual workers

wish to pay more than the National Insurance contributions, even for the sake of increased benefits. There is some evidence, although it is not wholly conclusive, that servants look to the Assistance Board to provide for their widows. Secondly, superannuation contributions are lower for servants than for officers, because the pay scales are different, and a complete levelling would involve increasing the contributions of manual workers. There is no general demand for alteration of the present system. The T.U.C. may have some alteration to propose, but they have been silent so far, and perhaps this is another point which can be discussed in Committee.

Mr. Moyle: I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the compulsory application of this proposal would increase the cost and would bring about an increase in contribution by the manual worker. That is not borne out by the facts, because those local authorities who have brought the whole of their manual employers within a scheme have in no way increased the contribution beyond that paid in respect of those schemes confined to officers.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As I understand it, it is 5 per cent. now for the lower grades, and the administrative and technical officers pay 6 per cent. So at the moment they are 1 per cent. above the others. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the contribution would have to go up to 6 per cent., or even beyond, to 7 per cent.?

Mr. Marples: I think, first of all, the percentage would have to be increased, and it must be borne in mind that the manual worker generally receives a lower rate of pay than the administrative worker, and the percentage increase might have to be greater than in the case of the administrative officer, in order to make the case actuarially tenable.
The third point is that the manual worker is more inclined than officers in local government service to serve for short and broken periods so that universal superannuation would increase the administrative work to some extent. There again, if the hon. Gentleman is with us in Committee, perhaps he will put down an Amendment so that we can thrash the point out in detail.


The hon. and learned Member for Ilford, North, who has great experience of local government, was perfectly correct in saying that this Bill is the result of long negotiations lasting some six or seven years, and it does, more than anything else, give pensions to widows and dependants. As he said, the main point is that the re-adjustment of the benefits has taken place without any increased contribution from the local authority or the staffs. That is the most important point.
I found the role taken by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North curious, agreeable, and acceptable. Supporting equal pay for men was an extremely attractive role for her to adopt. But no case has been put during the negotiations on the point she raised. It is an entirely new one, and one which deserves to be looked into.

Miss Ward: The Government are protecting men then?

Mr. Marples: I agree with the hon. Lady. If she were in my position and had to reply to some of her own questions, she would support equal pay for men too. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North said that the widows and teachers in Scotland should be treated the same as widows of local government employees, but this is a special question for Scotland and she would not expect me, as a mere Englishman, to deal with that peculiar and difficult position in Scotland.

Miss Herbison: I take it that in Committee we shall have a Scottish Minister present who will be able to deal with that point?

Mr. Marples: I do not know which Scottish Ministers out of the large number will be there, but no doubt there will be a representative of that famous country who will show the great assiduity which we always associate with them. The hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) raised what was really a Committee point and can be dealt with at that stage. The hon. Member for Falmouth and Cam-borne (Mr. Hayman) said that N.A.L.G.O. had failed to look after the officers he mentioned. I am not sure that those strictures would be accepted by the officers of N.A.L.G.O., who have been tenacious in pursuing the interests of their own members.
The hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) raised a legal point. He may not be with us on the Committee stage, and we shall miss his wise and learned counsel. [HON. MEMBERS: "He will."] I hope he will. He said that the re-enactment of Section 11(2) of the 1937 Act in Clause 14(4) would raise a legal difficulty. With all the diffidence of a layman, may I say that if he turns to Clause 4(2) of this Bill he will find that the rest of Section 11 of the 1937 Act has been repealed?

Mr. A. J. Irvine: With great respect, that does not in the least answer the point, but I shall be content if the hon. Gentleman says that he will be good enough to consider the point when he reads it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Marples: It can be dealt with in Committee, but, if the hon. Gentleman is not with us, I hope he will see that one of his hon. Friends on that side of the House raises the point.
Finally we had the contribution of the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter), who has great experience in local government matters and who raised the important point that all the financially contributing parties had been consulted. His main point was that there should be an all-round contribution of 6 per cent. or 5 per cent. Again, that is inherent in the nature of complicated Measures such as this and it is a Committee point which can be dealt with later.
I am grateful to the Opposition for facilitating the Second Reading of this Bill and I hope we shall have an amiable, although I fear rather intricate and lengthy, Committee stage. I hope this Bill will go through and that hon. Members will try to make it workable, because it is a useful and workmanlike Measure which will benefit people in local government.

Miss Herbison: Before the Minister sits down, would he answer the point which is of great interest to Edinburgh and Glasgow and a number of cities in England? Has the Minister power to compel local authorities to modify, to adapt or to repeal the local Act so that it may conform with the Regulations?

Mr. Marples: Answering, as they say in England, "off the cuff," I should say


the Minister has, but perhaps the hon. Lady will raise that at a later stage of the Bill?
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No.84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law as to the benefits to be payable to or in respect of contributors to superannuation funds maintained by local authorities and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session or of any regulations or rules made thereunder in the sums which are payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment.—[Commander Galbraith.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — COTTON BOARD LEVY

11.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I beg to move,
That the Draft Cotton Industry Development Council (Amendment No.2) Order, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.
I should like at the outset to declare an interest. As I informed the House on a previous occasion, I hold some stock in one cotton company. By this Motion we are seeking the approval of the House for an amended Order under Section 8(1) of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. The Cotton Board was established as a Development Council by the Cotton Industry Development Council Order, 1948. That Order was amended by an Order which came into force on 1st January last year, and this Order further amends it.
The chief purpose of the present Order is to increase from £300,000 a year to £450,000, the maximum amount of the

levy which the Cotton Board can, with the approval of the Board of Trade, impose. This will make it possible for the Cotton Board to increase, by the amount of the additional levy, their contribution to the British Cotton Industry Research Association—better known as the Shirley Institute—in the exercise of their function of promoting research.
The opportunity has also been taken to make a number of minor amendments, desired by those concerned, relating to the administration and collection of the levy. The most important of these amendments extends the liability to levy to certain minor finishing activities, for example the dyeing of raw cotton, which were not previously liable. The Board of Trade have consulted the appropriate organisations as required by the Act—the trade unions and all the employers' organisations representing the various sections of the industry. All the bodies consulted consent to the making of this Order, most of them strongly supporting it.
The Shirley Institute is a research station which has not merely a national but an international reputation. It has strong claims to be regarded as the best textile research station in the world. I think that all Lancashire Members are familiar with its work, and many have had, as I have, the interesting and stimulating experience of being shown round the Institute by Dr. Toy and the able and enthusiastic men who run it. I think that in the 30 years or so of its existence it has, through the development of improved techniques and discoveries, made a notable contribution to the progress and reputation of this great industry. It has devised methods of quality control at all stages of processing from raw cotton to the finished product and has devised machinery which has increased productivity.
I think that the House will generally agree that the Institute will be more important than ever in the intensely competitive conditions now facing us. I am glad that all sections of the industry consent to this Order, which will enable the Cotton Board to give the Institute the money that it needs. I am sure that the House will appreciate the wisdom of the industry in asking for this Order, and I commend it to the House.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes (Ashton-under-Lyme): This Order does nothing more than allow the cotton industry to subscribe its own money towards its own research association so that that can be properly run. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that the Institute enjoys a tremendous reputation in every textile country in the world, and I also agree with him in the sentiments he expressed about the levy. The voluntary system was running down, and the Institute was getting behind with its finances. In fact, during the three years up to this monh, it had drawn some £85,000 from reserve, and that sort of thing could not go on without harmful effect on the work of the Institute.
The special sub-committee set up in 1951 did a good job of work, and all hon. Members realised when the last amending Order came up for consideration that there would have to be an alteration in the terms of the amount of the levy. The committee asked for permission to increase the amount of the levy from £300,000 to £450,000 and I think that was very wise; because the statutory method of raising the money is undoubtedly the best. It is the most certain way of getting the money; it is the fairest way, because everybody pays, and it is the best way in bad times. It is all very well in good times for people to subscribe money, especially when it is liable for Income Tax; but when times are bad, that is not so good a method. The way suggested in the Order enables the levy to be put into operation, and otherwise there would have to be two levies, and duplication as a result.
The new levy, I understand, is contingent upon re-organisation of the Council. I understand, too, that all the trade associations are now entitled to nominate representatives to the Council, and the trades unions are also similarly entitled. Thus, they will be spending their own money, and the Institute will not be able to spend against the wishes of the subscribers. I should like to say that I think it most creditable that, at a time of depression, the Lancashire cotton industry had such confidence in its own research association to decide to ask for this increase in the levy.
For a long time it has been Government policy that industries running their own trade associations should eventually

stand on their own feet as far as finance is concerned; but it might be as well to see the incidence of the amount of money needed in relation to the amount of grant that the research association is able to count on from the Government. Up to 1952 the first £70,000 attracted a £30,000 grant from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Above £70,000 they had a £ for £ grant up to £50,000.
In the five-year period that was entered on 1st April, 1952, it was different. The first £180,000 attracted a £50,000 grant and above £180,000 there was a £ for £ grant up to £30,000; so gradually the industry is standing on its own feet as far as its research is concerned. It was different again in the last three years, because the first £220,000 attracted a £50,000 grant and above £220,000 there was a £ for £ grant up to £40,000. For this Institute an income in the region of £345,000 is needed.
While I am on this point, I should like to pay a tribute to the research association and the work that has been done under Dr. Toy. I am sure he is a proud man today, because this is the first time in the history of the association that its income is assured. He has worked and laboured for many years to this end, and I am sure that everyone wishes him well in the years that lie ahead.
I should sound this warning to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade: sometimes we think that everything that goes on under the name of research is good. At the present time, with the enthusiasm that has existed in industry for the setting up and backing of research associations, it seems to me that some duplication in the work done in the technological field may be creeping in. If I were him. I should look very closely at this question, especially in connection with some of the newer organisations. I can well understand that separate research associations may, without much difficulty and cost, be able to carry out research into fundamental questions with regard to the materials they use; but when it comes to the technological development on top of that fundamental research it is rather a different matter, and it is going to involve the country in duplication and tremendous expense.

Mr. Speaker: I dislike interrupting the hon. Member, but the question of technological research and possible duplication


is not comprised within the terms of this amending Order.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: On a point of order. We are considering whether we should authorise the spending of this money. I suggest that we should turn our attention to the question of economy and all possibilities of economy, which must include the consideration of overlapping and duplication.

Mr. Speaker: It is perfectly true that these matters can be alluded to; but as I understand this Order, it merely extends the amount of money which can be subscribed in the levy and makes a few incidental alterations. It is quite reasonable for hon. Members to make remarks alluding to the subject of research as a background to any criticisms they may have with regard to this Order; but it must not go too far.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Further to that point of order. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think you are being misled, in the same way as I was, by the Explanatory Note, which I agree refers only to the single factor of the increase in the levy upon the firms taking part in the industry; but in point of fact, as the Parliamentary Secretary made clear, many amendments are contained in this Order. Most of them are admittedly small in their implications, but some bring in new processes. The new definition of processed animal fibre brings in a whole category of additional factors. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that this Order is bringing up to date a whole series of minor amendments with regard to cotton research and the cotton industry.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that. I was merely pointing out that I do not think this amending Order, which relates to a levy and the raising of funds, entitles us to go into the matter of technological research at great length. I leave it to the House; I have told hon. Members my view.

Mr. Rhodes: I will not labour the point, Mr. Speaker. I have got it in, and that is enough. I am certain that what I have had to say in the matter will be noticed, because it is an important factor regarding research in the future.
Another point is liaison between research associations of this type. New

fibres are being used by the old textile industries. If research associations do work which is applicable to their own fibres only, a tremendous amount of money will be wasted, and research associations of all textile industries will, before long, be coming to the House under Section 9, or under the Section under which this Order has been introduced. I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he might look at the mixture of fibres. Several towns in Yorkshire depend for their living on the recovery of fibres from waste. At one time only a small amount of technical skill was needed to dissociate cotton from wool. Now, many fibres are being mixed with wool and cotton—nylon, terylene and rayon, for instance. Unless there is liaison between research associations to enable joint tackling of this problem, a good deal of private and public money will be wasted.
The Shirley Institute has a building fund. Of that fund, if my memory is right, it has used about £250,000 on its building programme since 1950. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the money is going to be used for the purpose for which it was subscribed. If it is, can he tell us when it will be used, and for what particular branch of research? The majority of people welcome this Order, which gives the research association an opportunity to stand on its own feet financially. It is a reward for the painstaking years of hard work of those running the association.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The statutory levy has now reached the high figure of nearly £500,000 yearly, and I do not think we can let this Order go without making one short comment. As the Parliamentary Secretary said when introducing the Order, this levy commands the respect and the agreement of the trade associations; but I do not think it right that it should be thought that it is unanimously welcomed by all the people engaged in the cotton textile business. I think that trade associations in this matter have sometimes given a false impression of the unanimity of their members. Certainly in the case of the steel industry that was the case not so very long ago.
There are, of course, always in any industry one or two lone wolves who do not belong to their trade association, who


do not want to belong to their trade association, who do not want to belong to the Cotton Board and who do not want to pay their levy. They may be right; they may be wrong; but it is only fair that their voice should sometimes be heard.
After all, the argument against them is that they take advantage of these excellent services, such as the Shirley Institute, and, therefore, why should they not pay for them? That argument has a very familiar ring. It is the classic argument for the closed shop, and I do think we want to be very careful in assuming that, because often the big boys in any association in any industry agree to something, it necessarily follows that all the people engaged are of the same mind.
With that warning, with that slight note of criticism, I nevertheless should like to welcome this Order because the work that is done by the Cotton Board, particularly by the Shirley Institute, is, of course, so valuable, and so well thought of throughout Lancashire, throughout England, and throughout the world.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: I think that perhaps the hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) was misled by the briefness of the introductory explanation of this Order, and I think it is a pity that the Parliamentary Secretary did not tell us a bit more regarding the financial side of the activities of the Shirley Institute. I would point out that this is, of course, not the actual levy. It is the limit of the levy. It is only a small point.
I really think that the hon. Gentleman's argument about the closed shop was rather irrelevant to our discussion. The same argument, that one can receive benefit from community activities but opt out of contributing to them, can apply equally well to the taxpayer. To suggest that in the textile industry trade associations are dominated by perhaps one or two big boys is only to display a certain lack of knowledge of the textile industry, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so.
This, after all, is a development that has been going on for a long number of years, since the days when the Cotton Board was set up before the war, and the Shirley Institute has been financed

co-operatively, and I am quite sure its contributions to the welfare of the textile industry, and generally, therefore, to the welfare of the community, are recognised—as, indeed, the hon. Gentleman generously recognised them later in his speech—and that they simply must be supported. This is the way which Parliament has approved. I would stress that this is a statutory way. It has been established and discussed and agreed upon by Parliament, and I think we should not dispute that particular principle.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a number of questions. I hope that I shall not go out of order. It is not often we get an opportunity in this House of discussing the work of the research associations. In this Order it is proposed to increase the maximum levy which the Cotton Board may impose from £300,000 to £450,000 a year, and I think we ought to know precisely what their income is at the moment and what it is to be.
My hon. Friend did give some figures, but I must confess that I had some difficulty in following the figures of the actual D.S.I.R. grants. This is a matter of great importance, because we do know that a number of research associations are seriously embarrassed by the shortage of finance following rising costs. Sometimes to continue the development of some new and important project, which they have to go on with, they have to economise on another section of their work.
I am sure this House will agree it is important that we should turn a great deal of attention to examining the research associations. It is an important form of Government patronage and expenditure, and it is possible there is a lot of waste in the Shirley Institute or elsewhere which can be wiped out. I do not know; but at least we should have the basic figures. It is unquestionably true that research is being handicapped in this country by the failure of the Government to increase the D.S.I.R. grants overall to match rising costs. Sometimes, the percentage cut may be far in excess of the pure monetary differential involved, and the actual size of the cut in activities which may result. Has the Shirley Institute suffered in this particular way, and how far has it been handicapped?


I should like to take up an aspect of the matter referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), who suggested it was part of the object of Governments that trade associations, and I think he meant research associations, too, should stand on their own feet. I am not sure if he meant that, financially, they should be independent of Government grants. If he did, I could not disagree more strongly. I believe there is an extraordinarily happy marriage between Government support and industrial backing in the idea of the research associations. It is a principle to which the overwhelming majority of hon. Members fully subscribe.
I hope we can have some figures on the subject of D.S.I.R. grants. Has the Shirley Institute made any application or tentative suggestions to D.S.I.R. for any larger grant to meet their needs? It is satisfactory that the cotton industry has been so clearly alert to their needs. It is encouraging, at a time of relative slump in the cotton industry, too, that it is prepared to go on spending money on absolutely essential development work.
There is a certain contradiction in policies which spring from the conditions of the partial slump, which we are glad to recognise has improved in certain respects. Some of the work—I hope I am in order in discussing the work of the Shirley Institute—has been concerned with questions of productivity. It is going to be extremely difficult to make full use of these inquiries into O.H.P. and so on, if there are conditions in which employers and workers are so concerned over the future that they will be resistant to the introduction of new ideas.
None the less, I am glad they are prepared to carry on with this work. We have, one way and another, to increase our productivity and get our costs down. I suggest that if the Shirley Institute is to carry out fundamental research into new machinery and the engineering side, there is a strong case for the Government providing proper incentives to the cotton firms to introduce new machinery. The work they are doing in testing raw cotton for the Empire Cotton Association and the Raw Cotton Commission is, I take it, paid for, since these particular undertakings are not themselves eligible under this or previous Orders for membership. They are certainly not defined as being

members of the cotton industry for the purposes of the Cotton Board. In this connection, I hope that if the Government are getting any ideas about reopening the Liverpool Cotton Exchange they will not forget the desirability of the continuation of this work, which is typical of the work which benefits the industry as a whole.
You have been very tolerant, Mr. Speaker, but I do consider that these points are relevant to the decision the House must take on whether we should approve this extension. It is a thing we should not enter into lightly. I agree with the hon. Member for Darwen that it is a matter in which the House are freely and gaily passing what is almost a form of taxation, and it requires to be examined very closely; it is, in fact, an extension of taxation to a new section of the industry. In conclusion, I am sure all hon. Members welcome this Order, which will be recognised as a sign of the energy of and faith in Lancashire; a faith which will enable them to overcome their difficulties.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: I welcome this Order. I confirm what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that this Order commands the support of all sections of the cotton textile industry. I think I am entitled to express the views of the trade unions in the cotton textile industry, who enthusiastically support this Order. The Cotton Board is a unifying organisation within the cotton textile industry, and in the difficult times we are entering it is more important than ever to have a unifying organisation in what is accepted as an over-sectionalised horizontal structure.
In difficult times it is extremely difficult to get agreement in a horizontally structuralised industry, and the Cotton Board provides an opportunity to do so. This Order provides adequate finance for the Cotton Board. One of the primary functions of the Cotton Board is to encourage research in the cotton textile industry, and this Order will enable the Cotton Board to make adequate grants to the Shirley Institute to continue the extraordinarily valuable work it has done for the industry.
I support the contention of the Parliamentary Secretary that in all sections of the cotton textile industry throughout the


world technologists and scientists are of opinion that the Shirley Institute is the finest of its kind in the world, and the long-term interests of our industry, and of British industry as a whole, are to a very large extent tied up with the quality of our research and the speed of its application. This Order will enable the Shirley Institute to carry on in security the fine work it has done, and I have pleasure in supporting this Order.

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I am very glad to have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) on this matter, because we always listen to him with great attention as a very real expert upon the industry, and it is a pleasure to have heard what he said. I have not very much to add, because I find myself in very substantial agreement with what was said by both my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth—and, indeed, with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), although I do disagree with him on one sentence, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South made reference. I think it would be a very good thing indeed if some Government contribution continued.

Mr. Rhodes: May I explain? What I said was that past Governments had made it quite clear that it should progress towards standing on its own feet in research. I did not say that there should be no Government contribution. Indeed, I am in favour of it, even on an increasing scale if expansion continues.

Mr. Hale: This only goes to show there is another split in the Labour Party healed.
The Parliamentary Secretary has always been personally courteous to me. I want to be courteous to him, and I hope what I am about to say will not be taken in bad part. But the House has not been given up to now a single figure to justify passing this Order. We are all agreed it is an excellent Institute. Most of us agree that the more money wisely spent on research the better for the industry. Most of us would welcome an expansion of research, but we have not been told either what is going to be spent, how the

expansion has gone and what progress has been made, and there are no figures to show how the money was spent last year.
It is all very well, but the House is the custodian of expenditure. We have just as much responsibility, even where we authorise a levy on other people, to consider whether it is properly spent, and it means a comparatively small increase of grant from the public purse. I have tried in the limited time available to find some accounts which would give me this information. In these circumstances the date of the introduction of this Order is singularly unfortunate, because I find that the annual report of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which contains three pages of exceedingly interesting and informative phrases on the Shirley Institute, was presented to Parliament in March, 1952. In other words, all the information is in respect of the year ending September, 1951, and has no very special relevance to the present situation. Indeed, one passage states:
An outstanding event of the year at the Shirley Institute has been the progress made on the first block of the new buildings referred to in the last report. This block, which is expected to be ready for occupation early in 1952, will house the whole of the Physics Division, and there will also be an administrative wing. The second new block, not yet started, is intended to house the Chemical Processing Division, the Engineering Shop and Drawing Office, and the Silk Department.
I hope that we shall be told that substantial progress has been made, and that that is one of the reasons extra money has been required. The Cotton Board is so very good in the main about circulating information. The documents they send out giving general information about their work on research are exceedingly helpful, but the information they give on accounts is fairly lamentable and singularly inadequate.
The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research only gives a collective figure of £1,600,000 paid to a vast number of research organisations, and the only other accounts I have been able to find are those in manuscript form in the Library of the Cotton Board for the year ending March, 1952. Again, they show a lump sum amount of £128,000 under the heading of grants to research organisations. In the previous year the amount was £83,000, and there is no indication where any of that goes. I must confess


to some ignorance in this matter. I do not know whether the British Cotton Association come in under this.

Mr. Rhodes: No.

Mr. Hale: I am very much obliged. I should have thought that there should be some liaison between the British Cotton Association and the Shirley Institute. Indeed, most of the work of the Shirley Institute lies in testing the suitability of cotton fibres and of new types of fibre in order to find out for what purpose they can be used and in receiving samples from the Commonwealth of the fibre being grown and submitting it to tests.

Mr. Rhodes: The British Cotton Growing Association is a commercial institution. What my hon. Friend really means is the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, which is a purely research organisation having its stations in most of the cotton-growing countries in the Empire.

Mr. Hale: It is very nice of my hon. Friend to tell me what I mean, but he is in error. I meant the British Cotton Growing Association, the 47th Annual Report and Statement of Accounts of which I have obtained from the Library and which refers in considerable detail to their experiments in growing cotton in Uganda and elsewhere and in producing new kinds of material.

Mr. Speaker: Again we seem to be straying wide of the Order before the House.

Mr. Hale: I do not want to detain the House, Mr. Speaker, but I would remind you that the principal job of the Shirley Institute is the testing of the varieties of fibre and reporting on them. Now I come to the second main job of the Shirley Institute. The report refers to the development of a great variety of new machines and of new scientific processes, including the testing of the rheological quality of the paste used in prints and the constructing of a new bath which would enable the computation with scientific accuracy of the amount of a solution being taken out and applied. On what basis are those machines supplied to the industry and by whom are they made?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that can possibly come within the Order. It is

a question of raising the amount of the levy and details as to the application of the money could not be in order.

Mr. Hale: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the House has to make a plain decision whether it is to allow another £150,000 to be raised for the Institute. My point is this: Is this Institute making commercial profits which will supplement the £150,000 or are we giving processes free to the industry, or upon what terms? Surely we are entitled to ask on what basis the Institute is being conducted before we decide that it is the sort of Institute which should have this money? With great respect, I sugest that with that explanation it brings the point within the Order we are discussing. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary can give us this information. Subject to that, I have no complaint to make.
I venture to suggest that sometimes in this House, with so much work to get through and so many matters to discuss, we get a little careless about the question of keeping a watchful eye on Government expenditure. It is not sufficient to say that this is a good Institute and therefore let us give it the money. We ought to be told for what the money is required, what the reserves are, what drawing on reserves for building there has been, what remains now, how much the grant will be supplemented from the profits, and how it is expected to be applied in the course of the next 12 months.
With respect, none of that information have we had, nor have my personal researches been able to vouchsafe to me any full information upon this matter. I think we are entitled to know. It is not a technical point. The very people upon whom this levy is being made are entitled to be able to read in their local Press tomorrow or the next day the full details which justify the making of the levy and, if the facts are not given, there is every reason for dissatisfaction. Subject to the information being adequately given, I personally am prepared to give my blessing to this Order.

12 midnight.

Mr. H. Strauss: In courtesy to the hon. Members who have spoken, I should like to say a few words. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) mentioned the reconstitution of the Council.


That will be part and parcel of the new arrangements. He also expressed his fear of duplication among research institutions. I would remind him that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research has a committee, consisting of representatives of the various textile research associations, which was set up specifically to prevent overlapping.
The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), who welcomed the Order but very ingeniously spoke on a number of matters which were not strictly within the Order, and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) both said that I had given no particulars of the finances of the Shirley Institute. That is true, but I do not think that it would be either in order or desirable for me to do so. Opportunities are, of course, given to the subscribing members of the Shirley Institute, and I have no doubt that both hon. Members will be able to see those reports.
There are, of course, three main sources of income. There is what the Institute gets from the Cotton Board, which the Order we are now discussing will enable to be increased. There is what it receives from members' subscriptions, and there is the grant from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. But I think that the hon. Member for Oldham, West—although I admire and appreciate his desire to inform himself in detail of the finances of the Shirley Institute—will agree that the purpose of this Order is to enable the Cotton Board to raise a levy. The Board of Trade can satisfy themselves, as the Department of Scientific Research satisfies itself, that the money will be well used by the Shirley Institute and that there will be no waste. Beyond that, the details of expenditure by the Shirley Institute are not included in any way in this Order and I do not think that it would be possible for me, even if I had all the material, to give the information that the hon. Member for Oldham, West desires. That information is properly given to the members of the Institute.
I welcome very much the support of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton), who speaks with great knowledge of this industry. I think that on all sides of the House this Order is welcomed, and I hope that the House is ready to come to a conclusion.

Mr. Shackleton: In the absence of some of the watchdogs below the Gangway on the Government side, I should like to say that I am really appalled that the Parliamentary Secretary suggests that the House is not entitled to know the details of the expenditure, even in broad outline, when we are being called upon to approve that expenditure. That expenditure cannot be incurred unless the House passes this Order. Furthermore, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Board of Trade were responsible for approving the expenditure anyway. Surely this is a matter in which the Minister is responsible to Parliament and, as such, he should give the House this sort of information.

Mr. Strauss: By leave of the House, may I just deal with that point? I am sure that it is my duty to satisfy the House that we ought to authorise the Cotton Board to raise this additional levy. But it will be for the Cotton Board and others who advance money to the Shirley Institute to satisfy themselves as to the finances of the Institute. Mr. Speaker has already indicated that it would not be in order for me, under the Order which I am now commending to the House, to deal with expenditure by the Shirley Institute.

Resolved,
That the Draft Cotton Industry Development Council (Amendment No.2) Order, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (MARINERS)

Draft National Insurance (Mariners) Amendment Regulations, 1953 [copy presented, 17th February], approved.—[Mr. Turton.]

Orders of the Day — WAKEFIELD GENERAL HOSPITAL (NURSES' ACCOMMODATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

12.6 a.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I did not wish to raise this matter tonight, but I fear that circumstances have more or less compelled me to do so. This is not a political issue but a human question, which is both serious and deserving. It concerns a profession of which we are all proud and think a great deal. I refer to nursing and, in particular, to the nurses' accommodation at the General Hospital, Wakefield.
In the first place, my attention was drawn to the serious position which has existed at this hospital for a long time, I have, of course, one advantage over the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in that I have seen these conditions to which I am referring. I have examined them most minutely and have been moved by them. Naturally, I felt it a duty and obligation to bring the matter before the Ministry of Health, and, having achieved little, I felt it necessary to call the attention of the House to those circumstances.
I do not wish to seek publicity, nor to score any points. On 10th June last, I wrote asking for these deficiencies to be put right. The hon. Lady gave serious consideration to my points in the reply which she sent, stating that she more or less agreed with me but adding that, owing to financial stringency, she thought my chance of success was very remote. But since I was born the times have always been times of financial stringency and anyone in public life soon learns that there is never an abundance of money. But those serving the public must realise that first things come first.
I studied this subject for a long time, and on 27th January of this year, I wrote again to the Ministry of Health and asked if the Minister himself would give consideration to my points. I sent him correspondence, and he replied, but told me that he had to endorse what the Parliamentary Secretary had told me last year; namely, that owing to financial difficulties, he could not lend support to

my argument. I say here and now that these matters of hospitals and accommodation are delegated to regional boards; but, the Minister cannot escape some responsibility, and in this instance, he has moral responsibility. It is not enough to read about something. While we must have some confidence in regional boards, the responsibility, in the end, must fall on the appropriate Government Department.
That is why I hope the Minister will be generous. The hospital committee which looks after this hospital in the City of Wakefield has been dealing with this matter since 1949. It is nothing new. It has continually pointed out to the regional board that something should be done in this matter. But there is a good deal of remote control, and some of these things are brushed aside without consideration of the human element.
I want to read from a report which I have received from the Nurses Council. I do not wish to weary the House by reading the whole of it; but, among other things, it mentions that 43 nurses have to share one wash basin and one lavatory. Another section of the report deals with three houses in Peterson Road which accommodate residential nurses. They are 12 minutes' walk from the hospital. There is a marked lack of sanitary accommodation. There is one bathroom with two hand basins and one separate lavatory to serve 13 people. The sister tutor and a medical officer share a bathroom with the domestic staff. There is a hand basin in the medical officer's room. The nurses' houses are dark and cheerless.
There are no facilities for study. The distance of the houses from the hospital cause difficulties with regard to supervision. There are also difficulties over the provision of meals, as only breakfast is provided in these detached hostels. When nurses are off duty meals are issued from the hospital and cooked by the cleaner on duty, and the nurses must go to the hospital for such meals as they require in off-duty times. The three separate houses are most uneconomical and they are undesirable from the disciplinary point of view.
Without any question the Minister must have great feeling for the nursing profession. I want her to appreciate that these three houses are cold, damp and


cheerless and they are one mile from the hospital. How can there be satisfactory supervision? Have we not a great moral responsibility to the parents of these nurses? I need not go into details and tell the Minister what can happen.
There has been a lot of talk about the need for nurses. We know we need nurses for chronic sickness, tuberculosis and mental cases. A great deal of money is being spent to publicise this noble profession. Girls are asked to go into it, but in the City of Wakefield we have conditions such as I have outlined. The Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that every nurse should have a well-furnished room, adequately heated and ventilated, with an arm chair and hot and cold water. There should be a library and a decent place for study. There should be ironing facilities and good bathing facilities. These are the things which we have been telling our young girls would exist. We have asked them to come into the hospitals for this noble work. The Minister has said, "Yes, I agree; but what can we do?"
In this very city, £3,000 or £4,000 is being allocated to provide central heating in a police home. If there is financial stringency for the Minister of Health, there is financial stringency for other departments. This is an important matter, and responsibility falls upon the Minister of Health. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will be generous and will say that before she makes a decision she will visit the place. I shall be prepared to accept that. The regional hospital board provides salubrious facilities for the training of nurses in Harrogate. The Parliamentary Secretary must appreciate the expenditure of the regional hospital board; but when we, as a hospital committee, have approached the board we have had a curt official reply. The last one which I received from the board stated:
My committee has given consideration to this particular question, but owing to financial stringency we do not class this as high priority, and we see no hope in the near future of granting the necessary capital.
The conditions which exist are a disgrace. They are abominable. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will see whether she can put right an evil which has existed for quite a few years.

12.19 a.m.

Mr. George Sylvester: My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) has raised an exceedingly important matter. I support him, as one who lives in the vicinity of this hospital, which, in former days, was a Poor Law hospital. Under the National Health Service Act it has been rejuvenated, and is used as a maternity and general hospital. Great work is being done there. But the nurses' conditions seem to have been left out of consideration. The hospital board complains that it is all the time tied by financial conditions.
It is true that the nurses' hostels are about a mile from the hospital, in old houses. The road where they are is well-known to me. The nurses have not the facilities they ought to have. Neither are there all the facilities there ought to be at the hospital. There is no sanitary accommodation for the nurses, or for people engaged in the theatre itself. I appreciate that this was a very old hospital; but it is rather alarming that when it is transformed into a good hospital so far as the inmates are concerned, the staff do not appear to have had due consideration.
We have difficulty in our part of the world in recruiting nurses for our hospitals, and this hospital not only serves the City of Wakefield but surrounding areas for at least 10 to 12 miles from the city. I am sure my hon. Friend, if he has done nothing else, has rendered a useful service for the nurses in this particular hospital, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will at least be able, even if she cannot tell us anything helpful tonight, to convey to the Minister the request for improvements in this hospital, and the request that he should come down definitely on the side of the staff and make an exceptional allowance to the regional board for the provision of proper facilities for the nurses there.

12.21 a.m.

Colonel Malcolm Stoddart-Scott: Those of us who come from the West Riding are very grateful to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) for raising this question. Those of us who know this hospital, and the way in which the nurses are accommodated in Wakefield, realise that we shall not be


able to staff the hospital with nurses, and keep the beds open there, unless we provide better accommodation for the nursing staff.
When the National Health Service Bill was in Committee, those of us from this side of the House who sat in the Committee took great care to see that the regional hospital boards had a considerable amount of local autonomy. We strove to see that they should be the ones to make decisions how the money Parliament voted to them should be spent.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Normanton in saying that the regional hospital boards must put first things first, and I think that that is the message that must go out from this House tonight. It is not for the Minister to alter a decision of the Leeds Regional Hospital Board, but it is for the Minister and the House to see that the vast sum of money we vote to that board is spent on the things that are necessary—the things that are necessary for carrying on the National Health Service in the West Riding of Yorkshire.
When we see that regional hospital board housing themselves in a great luxury hotel in Harrogate, only two-thirds of which they can use for their own purposes, for the hospital service they administer, and the nursing school they run, and when we see them spending £1,000 a year on gardeners' wages, and spending money on hothouses so that they can have plants in their offices and provide hospitals with flowers, we remember that those were not the purposes for which this House voted the money to that board.
When we see the way in which they spend their money on liqueurs and cocktails for their guests we realise that a message must go out from this House to that Board saying, "It is not for the Minister to alter a decision you have made, but you must spend your money on those things that are necessary—those things that keep the National Health Service going."
I hope that the Minister will see that the message that goes from this House is one which will make the board spend their money in those channels which will stimulate and increase our hospital services, and not harm and injure them. I am very glad to support the hon. Member for Normanton in his plea to the Minister.

12.24 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norman-ton (Mr. A. Roberts) for the very fair manner in which he has raised this problem. Let me say at the outset that we freely admit that on the very wide evidence we have had—indeed, it is admitted by the regional board and accepted by the Minister—this accommodation is unsatisfactory.
In the discussions between the house committee and the hospital management committee in that area there is no conflict between them that better accommodation should be provided for the nurses. The points put forward by the house committee can be summed up in this way, that they would prefer to have an entirely new nurses' home at the hospital there. Pending that, they would like to have an improvement in the sanitary accommodation for nurses and others in the hospital, redecoration of the nurses' homes, and an improvement in the various furnishings and facilities provided there.
Following the discussions between the board, the hospital management committee, and the house committee, the board have reached the decision that a new nurses' home is out of the question at present. Prices at the moment are in the range of £1,000 per place. There is the further aspect to be considered, that the policy of non-residence for nurses, other than students, is becoming more and more adopted and is one which must be considered in any question of extension of the nurses' home site in the hospital.
After reviewing all the priorities, the board, unfortunately, have decided that they cannot fit into their capital programme for the year beginning 1st April, the comparatively small expenditure necessary to improve the sanitary arrangements for nurses in the three houses. There is the further consideration, apart from the capital outlay, in regard to improvements in the toilet and bath facilities. These improvements would mean a curtailment of the present sleeping accommodation of the nurses, when the thing is to find additional sleeping accommodation. There is room for 52 people while they say that they require room for 80. The improvement would lessen further the existing sleeping accommodation.


Regarding painting and replacement of furniture to make the surroundings more congenial and the facilities in this respect better, it is possible these improvements can be effected, but that is a matter which rests with the local hospital management committee. I fully sympathise with what the hon. Member says and agree that we want better and proper accommodation for our nurses. He is raising a very great matter of principle. What the hon. Member for Normanton is asking my right hon. Friend to do, is to over-ride the board on the question of priorities. I am sure he will agree, on reflection, that this goes beyond the bounds of the particular item we are debating.
If this were done, my right hon. Friend, having given the initial grant to the regional hospital board, who are more in touch with all the problems than the Minister, it would make the position untenable. When the board have been deputed to decide the priorities and the speed with which they can resolve them, and knowing their financial capabilities, it would be untenable that the Minister should, without exceptional reasons override those priorities and change the decisions of the board.
The allocation of available finance is made by my right hon. Friend, but, once that money has been allocated to the board, the priorities are decided by the board. It is not a question of the Minister being generous and finding, from some unknown source, additional money. It is a question of what priority the hospital board places on this matter. The board have the power in this respect, and they will decide if it is in the top six and not in the bottom six of the projects they have before them. They have to fit this into their capital programme. It is fair to say that the board have had to meet a substantial programme of capital expenditure for both patients and staff in the area. The board have before them a large number of projects of considerable urgency, most of them, I will admit, to the benefit of the patients.
Much though I sympathise with all the points made in this debate, I am afraid the Minister is not prepared to over-ride the decisions of the board. It is a matter for their decision and I hope that this

debate will emphasise the need, which we admit, for something to be done about this nurses' accommodation. I am surprised to learn from the hon. Member for Normanton that, in the reply he received from the board, if I quote him correctly, the board did not consider this of high priority. The board's capital allocation for the next financial year is £380,000, but because of a large number of building projects and other schemes which are still in progress and are carried on to the following year they have only £118,000 to be devoted to new works.
On the Harrogate question, I think it is fair to say that most of the money referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend is maintenance money which does not come into the capital allocation we are discussing tonight. In fact, not much capital work has been done at Harrogate; and what has been done has been for the benefit of the nurses' home—which is very adequate and as well equipped as we would like to see the other one to which reference has been made—and on the preliminary training school which shares premises with the regional hospital board.

Mr. A. Roberts: Why work in these salubrious surroundings, with luxury fittings, and then have to go a mile away from the hospital to old Edwardian or Victorian buildings which are cheerless? While the board must have certain powers to deal with priorities, there ought to be an investigation to find out whether or not kissing goes by favour.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I do not think that we are as much at cross-purposes as perhaps that last intervention would suggest.
We accept that this accommodation is bad; we agree it should be better; but this is a much wider problem. If items which have been put further down the list by the board are to be given priority when the local board have made their decision, that would set a precedent indeed. I can only recommend hon. Members to use all the weight of their influence and power, if they feel so strongly about this matter, as I am sure they do, to see that higher priority is given to this in their own area. If the position were reversed and we were jumping the priority of item No.5 over item No.1, all those who wanted item No.1 to go forward would


immediately condemn the Minister for intervening and overriding the decision of the board. I regret that I cannot give a more adequate reply, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we support his view that this accommodation is unsatisfactory.

12.35 a.m.

Mr. Horace E. Holmes: Would the hon. Lady represent to the Minister the position as far as Wakefield Hospital is concerned, which covers my area as well as that already referred to? Because of this accommodation there is a danger of Wakefield Hospital having to steady down its intake because of shortage of nurses. It is a pity that nurses in Wakefield have to live and sleep in almost slum conditions, when they know full well what the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Colonel Stoddart-Scott)

said about the Harrogate set-up. Harrogate is a residential place to start with. The old Poor Law hospital is still near to a slum and the staff of that hospital are living in almost slum conditions. It is not good enough. While giving full authority to the board, the Minister should not sit back without making some representations to the board.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am sure that the combined representations of hon. Members tonight will certainly add substantially to the feeling we have on this matter, and I hope it will show some result.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes to One o'Clock, a.m.